Dwelling in the Possibilities of a “Win-Win”
May 21, 2010
Elizabeth Scalia
The patient had pulmonary hypertension, a rare and often fatal condition in which a pregnancy can cause the death of the mother. Sister Margaret McBride was the on-call member of the Catholic hospital’s ethics committee. She was part of a group, including the patient and doctors, who approved the termination of the pregnancy. Because of her participation in that decision, Sr. McBride is currently excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Stories like this make the Catholic Church seem so very unreasonable. Who would not prefer to save the life of a woman who is already “here,” one who can be touched and seen and appreciated, over the life of a great unknown, the dependent creature in the womb? Other faiths allow abortion in a case such as this; only the arrogant Catholic Church, it seems, is so blind to reason, so narrow and unnatural.
But the position of the church is actually born from humility, from daring to believe that God knows what he is doing. The church is not blind; she sees with eyes that are not fixated on the corporeal. Her perceived narrowness of perspective is actually so broad, it reaches into mystery. Far from being unnatural, she remains supernatural. She dares to trust that God’s plans really are “of fullness, not of harm.”
Although details are scarce, we are told there was an “urgency” to this 11-week pregnancy, and that there was a “nearly certain” risk of death to the mother. “If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it,” the hospital told The Arizona Republic. “We are convinced there was not.”
The adverb is the bugaboo. A “nearly certain, risk” is where reason, faith and ethics collide. Man trusts what man knows (in this case science and human flesh) and because he likes that illusion of control, he ignores the qualifier and calls the risk “certain.” It is easier to move on a pure certainty than on a “near” one that muddles everything up.
Having subjected these difficult, seemingly no-win situations to serious and prayerful thought, the Catholic Church gleans that—in obedience to God—this is where trust, that most difficult thing, must enter into the picture. She teaches that as we are all loved into being (and precious in the sight of God) a mother’s life, and the life of her baby, are of equal value; therefore each circumstance—and all available treatments and possible outcomes— must be individually considered.
Where both mother and child will surely perish—as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy threatening to burst a fallopian tube, or a uterine cancer or hemorrhage necessitating the whole removal of the uterus—the death of the child is a secondary (and unintentional) result of the life-saving treatment. This “indirect” abortion is made distinct from a “direct” (and therefore illicit) abortion, by intention.
Trained to value feelings over fine distinctions, moderns may not like it, but there is a difference between a procedure that “saves the mother’s life but (indirectly) destroys the baby in the process,” and one that “destroys the baby (directly) to save the mother’s life.”
To some, that may seem like splitting hairs, or debating over how many angels dance upon the head of a pin, but, as Chesterton wrote, “It is the fact that many a man would be dead today, if his doctors had not debated the fine shades about doctoring. It is also the fact that European civilization would be dead today, if its doctors of divinity had not debated fine shades about doctrine.”
Asked if the church position prefers the mother and child to die, rather than sparing the life of one of them, [James J Walters, professor of bioethics at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles] said the hope is that both would survive.
Exactly right. The church hopes for nothing but life, lived in love, but with the clear-eyed understanding that pain is a part of the whole.
Putting it more simply: aborting the child results in one certain death—not a “near” event, but a sure-thing; what the world might call a “win-lose.” Allowing the child to live, and supporting the mother with all due diligence throughout the pregnancy may result in the death of one, (another “win-lose”) or both, (a “lose-lose”) but because of that qualifier, “nearly,” and because even the best doctors cannot wholly insure or predict any outcome, there is also the possibility that no one will die, that both mother and child will live. A “win-win.”
If the church errs, she errs on the side of life. If she regrets the necessity of a “win-lose” in the case of an indirect abortion, she rejects outright the irrevocable “win-lose” of a direct-abortion in order to dwell in the possibility of a win-win.”
“When I first [was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension] I was told, ‘You need to abort the pregnancy,’” [JoShara Rodgers] Rodgers said. “‘You need to abort. You’re going to die. You’re going to die.’ That’s when I finally said, I was like, it’s in God’s hands. If it’s His will we’ll make it through OK.”
Nationally, two-thirds of pregnant woman with pulmonary hypertension will not go home with their newborn. To avoid this outcome, just about any medical textbook or study reads the same.
[. . .]
[Dr. Dianne Zwicke] is the director of the pulmonary hypertension clinic at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center and has developed a recipe of sorts for helping a mother with pulmonary hypertension survive after childbirth. While the top medical centers in the country have a 50 percent to 60 percent death rate, Zwicke has a 100 percent success rate. She has helped 40 women worldwide.
“These guys . . . They’ve all been told, ‘You’re going to die.’ And you don’t have to die,” Zwicke said. (Excerpted from an interview with ABC affiliate WISN, Wisconsin)
Trying circumstances such as these are an invitation to ponder all we do not know. We believe that God wants both mother and child to live, but accept the possibility of other plans and even other—to us shocking—ideas, such as this one: What if that was all the life the mother was meant to have?
That unthinkable question, asked in light of the promise of Jeremiah 29:11, is where, for Christians, the rubber may well meet the road. Can we accept and wholly trust that God “has a plan” for each of us, if only we do not impede his access into our lives? We are meant never to forestall God’s possibilities.
Our society loves time-travel stories. We love to tease the notion that one change in the time-continuum can have drastic and far-reaching consequences, even for peripheral characters, and for generations. A quantum slip, and the whole world may be forever altered.
But we never wonder (and indeed, some will hate me for daring to do so, here): what happens, within that continuum, when a woman who perhaps, in God’s plan, was supposed to die, instead chooses to kill the baby and remain alive?
If we believe that God has indeed has loved us into being, and for a purpose, what happens when the purpose is thwarted? Suddenly everyone in the mother’s world, even those on the periphery, may see their lives tilted away from the original “plan” God had for them. Perhaps lessons that need learning go unlearned. Perhaps a gadget that needs inventing in order to feed millions in the third world must be invented later. Perhaps a child meant to grow up formed by the knowledge that her own mother loved her so much that she risked death for her is not born at all, and a love that needs manifesting and expressing, goes undiscovered, and unshared.
If God is love, that last might be reason enough to choose life over abortion, even when the struggle is most heartfully sincere, the possibilities are complicated and frightening, and the illusion of control seems so tantalizingly near and clear.
Elizabeth Scalia is a contributing writer for First Things. She blogs at The Anchoress.
Comments:
5.21.2010 | 6:49am
sanpietrini says:
I can't imagine the agony of the mother that became part of the decision. But, abortion is certainly the ending of a human life (just in case "murder" is not a socially accepted synonym). To the question of, "Why'd you do it?" I pray my response is never, "Just so --I-- could live."
5.21.2010 | 7:59am
Ann says:
Well said. I think it is time to introduce our fellow Catholics to St. Gianna Molla. She died rather than abort her baby. That is the example to follow.
Did the Catholics involved in this abortion forget that we believe in heaven as a reality not a "gee I hope it's true" dream, and we that believe that heaven is far better than this earthly life? Did they forget that death is not to be feared but rather welcomed as the attainment of our life long goal? These situations really show a complete lack of faith in the basics never mind a willful disregard of intellectual intergrity is the "ethical" decision making process.
God have mercy on us now that Catholic hospitals will perform an abortion an defend it.
Did the Catholics involved in this abortion forget that we believe in heaven as a reality not a "gee I hope it's true" dream, and we that believe that heaven is far better than this earthly life? Did they forget that death is not to be feared but rather welcomed as the attainment of our life long goal? These situations really show a complete lack of faith in the basics never mind a willful disregard of intellectual intergrity is the "ethical" decision making process.
God have mercy on us now that Catholic hospitals will perform an abortion an defend it.
5.21.2010 | 8:46am
freelunch says:
How is it that God can be all-powerful, yet have His purpose thwarted?
5.21.2010 | 8:47am
Karen says:
The problem with your argument is that while it may make for great faith, it makes for dreadful public policy. Your church would make laws that enforce a 60% death rate on ALL women with this condition, not merely those who agree that they are less important than their fetuses.
In this particular case, the woman was in a hospital far away from the doctor who's saved 40 women with the same condition. If the doctors had waited until there was no qualifier to "certain death," then the woman would BE dead. This is the major flaw with "save the life of the mother" abortion exceptions -- it's exceptionally difficult to determine just how close to dead it means. In this case, a condition that 60% of the women who have it die from it. The doctors and the woman's family needed to make a decision and decided to save the life of the actual existing person.
In this particular case, the woman was in a hospital far away from the doctor who's saved 40 women with the same condition. If the doctors had waited until there was no qualifier to "certain death," then the woman would BE dead. This is the major flaw with "save the life of the mother" abortion exceptions -- it's exceptionally difficult to determine just how close to dead it means. In this case, a condition that 60% of the women who have it die from it. The doctors and the woman's family needed to make a decision and decided to save the life of the actual existing person.
5.21.2010 | 8:57am
sandy marshall says:
Beautifully stated. Thank you for reminding us again to allow ourselves to take into account what is divine.
5.21.2010 | 9:13am
Ars Artium says:
The most important information one obtains from this essay is that a program exists, one which has so far achieved a 100% success rate. This program should, no must, be made available to all obstetrics practitioners. The Arizona hospital staff did not possess the knowledge they needed to make a win-win decision. Under the circumstances, one must acknowledge they did try to do the best they could with incomplete knowledge. There is, needless to say, no unforgivable sin. With this new information, Sr. McBride need not make this mistake again.
5.21.2010 | 9:23am
Ars Artium says:
May I amend my comment to "the second most important thing" in this essay is the existence of a protocol for saving the lives of mother and child. The first is Elizabeth Scalia's point - that we do not know the mind of God nor can we predict every possible outcome. If we do all that we can, expend every effort toward the good, the outcome can then be peace, even in the face of grief and loss.
5.21.2010 | 10:18am
Ed Schoen says:
Elizabeth - Thank you for a wonderfully sensitive and thoughtful piece. I am professionally familiar with the issues you discuss, and you have done so with incredible insight and compassion. Some will hate you for it, but many of us will honor your wisdom and courage.
5.21.2010 | 10:26am
Gayle Miller says:
Too bad the execrable Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden can't or won't read this brilliant piece of writing Elizabeth. Nor will those babbling hordes who feel they have the right to demonize our Church for being somehow deficient in its care and love for its members! Of course, they'd never draw a cartoon of Mohammad, but . . . hey, Pope Benedict is fair game! I occasionally become quite disheartened at the willful stupidity of far too many of my fellow humans!
5.21.2010 | 10:55am
Mrs.Expecting says:
Brave prose! Thank you for another courageous article.
Freelunch: Our all-powerful God allows our free will to "thwart" His Plan; thwart but never destroy. Cf. The Garden of Eden and Calvary.
Freelunch: Our all-powerful God allows our free will to "thwart" His Plan; thwart but never destroy. Cf. The Garden of Eden and Calvary.
5.21.2010 | 11:05am
Overseas says:
Believing that God knows what he is doing is fine. Believing that we can tell what God is doing in any particular case sounds arrogant.
I understand that the lady who had the abortion and is now alive is a mother of four. Which Catholic bishop would dare to look her orphans in the eye and say that he vetoed their mum having an abortion because perhaps that was all the life their mum was meant to have? What if, instead, that was all the life the embryo was meant to have? Most embryos are naturally aborted anyway, often before women even realise they’re pregnant. So this argument settles exactly nothing.
I can't see why pregnant patients should have fewer chances to survive if they are being treated in a Catholic hospital. I also wonder how doctors feel about having to bend their professional judgment to align with interpretations of religious dogma.
I understand that the lady who had the abortion and is now alive is a mother of four. Which Catholic bishop would dare to look her orphans in the eye and say that he vetoed their mum having an abortion because perhaps that was all the life their mum was meant to have? What if, instead, that was all the life the embryo was meant to have? Most embryos are naturally aborted anyway, often before women even realise they’re pregnant. So this argument settles exactly nothing.
I can't see why pregnant patients should have fewer chances to survive if they are being treated in a Catholic hospital. I also wonder how doctors feel about having to bend their professional judgment to align with interpretations of religious dogma.
5.21.2010 | 11:06am
Me says:
Had the abortion not taken place and both died, how would you make it up to the four children left without a mother? Will you babysit them for free while the dad works to support them?
These are real human beings and compassion for real, existing people is not a sin.
Would you be willing to bet your life on those odds?
These are real human beings and compassion for real, existing people is not a sin.
Would you be willing to bet your life on those odds?
5.21.2010 | 11:06am
Karen says:
Oh, Anchoress, only you can see so clearly and say it so well. In my gut I know the right answer, but cannot express it in such clarity. Yes, the *nearly* is definitely the key here. I hope to apply that same reasoning to anyone who presents me with such what-if's in the future (although I know this case is a real one). Thank you. And I love the line where you say "The church is not blind; she sees with eyes that are not fixated on the corporeal. Her perceived narrowness of perspective is actually so broad, it reaches into mystery." How true, how true! We must live lives of infinite hope, because our hope is in the Infinite.
5.21.2010 | 11:16am
Jesurgislac says:
If we believe that God has indeed has loved us into being, and for a purpose, what happens when the purpose is thwarted?
Quite. What if the woman who would have died last November was ALSO loved into being by God, and for a purpose, which would have been thwarted had the hospital to which she was taken just let her die?
How can the bishop who argues that the right thing to do was to let her die think he knows better than God?
If God wanted that woman dead, she would have died last November. She's alive: how dare anyone presume that God wanted her dead?
Quite. What if the woman who would have died last November was ALSO loved into being by God, and for a purpose, which would have been thwarted had the hospital to which she was taken just let her die?
How can the bishop who argues that the right thing to do was to let her die think he knows better than God?
If God wanted that woman dead, she would have died last November. She's alive: how dare anyone presume that God wanted her dead?
5.21.2010 | 11:27am
freelunch says:
Mrs.Expecting -
How does anyone know that it is not God's will that the doctors save the mother's life through mundane medical means? How is it courageous to tell a woman that she should take the very high risk of dying because maybe God wants her to die during her pregnancy? Is it thwarting God's will to give children vaccines to save them from the risk of dying of childhood illnesses? Does God hate all medical care?
How does anyone know that it is not God's will that the doctors save the mother's life through mundane medical means? How is it courageous to tell a woman that she should take the very high risk of dying because maybe God wants her to die during her pregnancy? Is it thwarting God's will to give children vaccines to save them from the risk of dying of childhood illnesses? Does God hate all medical care?
5.21.2010 | 11:42am
Francine says:
God has allowed all of this. It's not arrogant to have faith in God and know that He knows what He is doing!
Obviously, this is our free will in action. The mother's free will in deciding to abort, the doctors' and Sr. McBride's and the husband's... Everyone made a decision here. Not an easy decision, but they decided to kill the baby to save the mother.
While we can feel for the mother and her possibly almost orphaned children (GASP!) it all comes down to WHAT IS RIGHT. It is RIGHT to treat the mother and the child with all of our knowledge and expertise. AND, it is RIGHT to follow the commands of God, no matter what. It is arrogant of doctors and everyone else to decide what is righteous. The heart of God and knowing that must be our standard.
It's a hard truth but it is the TRUTH. John the Baptist - in utero - leapt with joy when Mary visited his mother because he knew that the Blessed woman was the mother of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He was already a knowing being.
It is arrogant to presume, if the mother had died, that life would be terrible and horrible and all manner of bad for the children and husband. God's grace and love should be sufficient for those who live by faith and not by sight.
People fear death in this country, and I believe that is why so many people try to extend life beyond what is reasonable, and control life in such godless ways. Their faith is in themselves and what they see and touch, not in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Obviously, this is our free will in action. The mother's free will in deciding to abort, the doctors' and Sr. McBride's and the husband's... Everyone made a decision here. Not an easy decision, but they decided to kill the baby to save the mother.
While we can feel for the mother and her possibly almost orphaned children (GASP!) it all comes down to WHAT IS RIGHT. It is RIGHT to treat the mother and the child with all of our knowledge and expertise. AND, it is RIGHT to follow the commands of God, no matter what. It is arrogant of doctors and everyone else to decide what is righteous. The heart of God and knowing that must be our standard.
It's a hard truth but it is the TRUTH. John the Baptist - in utero - leapt with joy when Mary visited his mother because he knew that the Blessed woman was the mother of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He was already a knowing being.
It is arrogant to presume, if the mother had died, that life would be terrible and horrible and all manner of bad for the children and husband. God's grace and love should be sufficient for those who live by faith and not by sight.
People fear death in this country, and I believe that is why so many people try to extend life beyond what is reasonable, and control life in such godless ways. Their faith is in themselves and what they see and touch, not in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
5.21.2010 | 11:47am
Karen says:
(I'm the 5:47 a.m. Karen) Apparently the only way to determine that a pregnancy threatens a woman's life is to allow her to die from it. Thanks, guys (and I mean that in the strictly male sense, being that women have no voice in your church.) I'm glad to know what you think of us.
5.21.2010 | 11:50am
Richard says:
The author said it best in the beginning of her comments that the Church's position seems so unreasonable. It certainly is and fortunately there are nonjudgmental and decent people out there who can make sane decisions in real situations like this and not doctrinaire and self righteous people that write high minded rhetoric like this to justify a rigid doctrine.
In the law there is a defense termed "choice of evils." There are situations, probably more black and white than this case since the author parses the notion the mother may die, where there is a distinct choice between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. The comment about this mother's other children is right on here. And the Brazilian bishop that excommunicated doctors and a mother (the child if he could) brings up another life and death circumstance. But I am certain that if this writer ever found herself in such a "Sophie's Choice" situation she would undoubtedly make the true doctrinal decision and have a clear conscience about it. Indeed, she has nothing if not a clear conscience, probably about all aspects of this life.
In the law there is a defense termed "choice of evils." There are situations, probably more black and white than this case since the author parses the notion the mother may die, where there is a distinct choice between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. The comment about this mother's other children is right on here. And the Brazilian bishop that excommunicated doctors and a mother (the child if he could) brings up another life and death circumstance. But I am certain that if this writer ever found herself in such a "Sophie's Choice" situation she would undoubtedly make the true doctrinal decision and have a clear conscience about it. Indeed, she has nothing if not a clear conscience, probably about all aspects of this life.
5.21.2010 | 12:05pm
Ben says:
This is a courageous attempt to be faithful to one of the Catholic Church's most difficult positions. I feel the need, however, to offer up the sober truth that even with the best of care, pregnancies like these do not always end in the win-win situation that Catholicism hopes for. Dr. Zwicke's work is remarkable, but she has only 40 test cases to date. That is not statistically significant; we cannot extrapolate that all, or even the majority, of women with pulmonary hypertension will survive pregnancy on the basis of her work.
What, then, do we say of those terrible cases when new life comes at the cost of the mother's death? Or even worse: what can we say when both mother and child die? Can we truly be so bold as to assert that God's plan has not been thwarted when both are lost? If we can, we must acknowledge that God's plan does not always involve the continued life of the newborn. If that is the case, then can the Church categorically condemn abortion when it is done with the intention of saving the mother's life?
Lest I be misunderstood, I do not mean to argue that for blanket approval of abortion. I do not even intend to argue that a mother should, in general, have an abortion if she is diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension. I do intend to argue, however, that it might be a little overzealous of the Church to excommunicate Sr. McBride. These questions are terribly difficult--more difficult, perhaps, than this article is prepared to acknowledge. It may not be wise to shut the door on differing opinions just yet.
What, then, do we say of those terrible cases when new life comes at the cost of the mother's death? Or even worse: what can we say when both mother and child die? Can we truly be so bold as to assert that God's plan has not been thwarted when both are lost? If we can, we must acknowledge that God's plan does not always involve the continued life of the newborn. If that is the case, then can the Church categorically condemn abortion when it is done with the intention of saving the mother's life?
Lest I be misunderstood, I do not mean to argue that for blanket approval of abortion. I do not even intend to argue that a mother should, in general, have an abortion if she is diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension. I do intend to argue, however, that it might be a little overzealous of the Church to excommunicate Sr. McBride. These questions are terribly difficult--more difficult, perhaps, than this article is prepared to acknowledge. It may not be wise to shut the door on differing opinions just yet.
5.21.2010 | 12:08pm
Thomas says:
This article is strange for a number of reasons.
1. It holds a view of God's will that resembles the move "The Butterfly Effect" more than a traditional, non-deterministic view of providence.
2. It ignores the facts that in the Old Testament the death of a child early in the pregnancy was different under the law than the death of a child that has been born, that the many of the Church Fathers commonly used the phrase "potential human beings" for unborn children; and that the Christian legal tradition has likewise made a moral distinction between a child prior to quickening, after quickening, and one that has been born.
3. It ignores the fact that abortions do not certainly result in the death of children, so the balancing of a certain death on the one hand, and an uncertain one on the other is patently false. Even if it were true, it must be the case that there's a significant moral difference between that which is certain and that which is nearly certain -- which is not at all obvious. Indeed, in medicine nothing is metaphysically certain, and one cannot straightforwardly apply odds to individual cases. The article is predicated upon this mistake.
4. It verges on dishonesty: the hospital staff said that there was no way the mother would survive. At least some of them, therefore, believed that it was certain that the mother would die. (It's not clear where the "near certainty" quote came from.) Scalia's argument against this? A news report saying there are effective ways to treat the condition. Never mind that the hospital was not treating a condition, but a particular patient whose particular condition may not have been amenable to any treatment. Never mind that if we were to believe news reports like this AIDS would have been cured several times over.
If this is the Catholic view on the matter, it is remarkably poorly thought out, it ignores its own traditions (Biblical, Patristic, Legal), and is based on a naive view of how patients are actually treated.
1. It holds a view of God's will that resembles the move "The Butterfly Effect" more than a traditional, non-deterministic view of providence.
2. It ignores the facts that in the Old Testament the death of a child early in the pregnancy was different under the law than the death of a child that has been born, that the many of the Church Fathers commonly used the phrase "potential human beings" for unborn children; and that the Christian legal tradition has likewise made a moral distinction between a child prior to quickening, after quickening, and one that has been born.
3. It ignores the fact that abortions do not certainly result in the death of children, so the balancing of a certain death on the one hand, and an uncertain one on the other is patently false. Even if it were true, it must be the case that there's a significant moral difference between that which is certain and that which is nearly certain -- which is not at all obvious. Indeed, in medicine nothing is metaphysically certain, and one cannot straightforwardly apply odds to individual cases. The article is predicated upon this mistake.
4. It verges on dishonesty: the hospital staff said that there was no way the mother would survive. At least some of them, therefore, believed that it was certain that the mother would die. (It's not clear where the "near certainty" quote came from.) Scalia's argument against this? A news report saying there are effective ways to treat the condition. Never mind that the hospital was not treating a condition, but a particular patient whose particular condition may not have been amenable to any treatment. Never mind that if we were to believe news reports like this AIDS would have been cured several times over.
If this is the Catholic view on the matter, it is remarkably poorly thought out, it ignores its own traditions (Biblical, Patristic, Legal), and is based on a naive view of how patients are actually treated.
5.21.2010 | 12:23pm
Jonathan says:
"Trying circumstances such as these are an invitation to ponder all we do not know. We believe that God wants both mother and child to live, but accept the possibility of other plans and even other—to us shocking—ideas, such as this one: What if that was all the life the mother was meant to have?"
That IS a shocking idea. I think it is shocking because it opens the door to the idea that God wills death (or illness or disability or...) for his creations to fulfill a plan of His. It begins to eat into the idea of free will, and erodes the idea that "God wills no evil, though he can (and will) bring good despite it."
David Bentley Hart, in the "pages" of this magazine, noted Karamazov's argument against this sort of theodicy, saying:
"But what makes Ivan’s argument so disturbing is not that he accuses God of failing to save the innocent; rather, he rejects salvation itself, insofar as he understands it, and on moral grounds. He grants that one day there may be an eternal harmony established, one that we will discover somehow necessitated the suffering of children, and perhaps mothers will forgive the murderers of their babies, and all will praise God’s justice; but Ivan wants neither harmony—“for love of man I reject it,” “it is not worth the tears of that one tortured child”—nor forgiveness; and so, not denying there is a God, he simply chooses to return his ticket of entrance to God’s Kingdom. After all, Ivan asks, if you could bring about a universal and final beatitude for all beings by torturing one small child to death, would you think the price acceptable?"
It is not acceptable to me, either, that the price of God's bringing good is limiting the life of a woman in this way.
That IS a shocking idea. I think it is shocking because it opens the door to the idea that God wills death (or illness or disability or...) for his creations to fulfill a plan of His. It begins to eat into the idea of free will, and erodes the idea that "God wills no evil, though he can (and will) bring good despite it."
David Bentley Hart, in the "pages" of this magazine, noted Karamazov's argument against this sort of theodicy, saying:
"But what makes Ivan’s argument so disturbing is not that he accuses God of failing to save the innocent; rather, he rejects salvation itself, insofar as he understands it, and on moral grounds. He grants that one day there may be an eternal harmony established, one that we will discover somehow necessitated the suffering of children, and perhaps mothers will forgive the murderers of their babies, and all will praise God’s justice; but Ivan wants neither harmony—“for love of man I reject it,” “it is not worth the tears of that one tortured child”—nor forgiveness; and so, not denying there is a God, he simply chooses to return his ticket of entrance to God’s Kingdom. After all, Ivan asks, if you could bring about a universal and final beatitude for all beings by torturing one small child to death, would you think the price acceptable?"
It is not acceptable to me, either, that the price of God's bringing good is limiting the life of a woman in this way.
5.21.2010 | 12:23pm
Sensus Fidei says:
I am a pro-life Catholic (that means anti-death penalty too fyi to some in our movement) and am extremely distraught over the damage Bishop Olmstead has caused to our vital mission. Likewise, your uninformed opinion and faith do damage and ultimately result in the death of more babies. So tragically, the only WIN WIN here was the fact that Planned Parenthood will gain more supporters and donations.
I will pray for you and your ilk. See you in the pew on Sunday, where you are inevitably surrounded by the majority of Catholics who are non-extremists, reasonable, thinking, praying, informed conscience acting Catholics.
I am also an Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist and look forward to celebrating the Blessed Sacrament with you when you repent of the grave scandal you are perpetuating and resume communion with your Catholic sisters and brothers.
I will pray for you and your ilk. See you in the pew on Sunday, where you are inevitably surrounded by the majority of Catholics who are non-extremists, reasonable, thinking, praying, informed conscience acting Catholics.
I am also an Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist and look forward to celebrating the Blessed Sacrament with you when you repent of the grave scandal you are perpetuating and resume communion with your Catholic sisters and brothers.
5.21.2010 | 12:28pm
Rob says:
This is a remarkably bad theodicy, one that imputes evil directly to God, and which takes refuge in a Calvinist's understanding of God as Power rather than God as Goodness. God has nothing to do with evil in this sense; he permits it, but does not cause it or love it or need it. The implications of this kind of position as articulated by the author are staggeringly evil and perverse--and if the Church claims that we must trust in evil producing Good and that evil is part of God's direct and active plan for a human soul, rather than a vicious and destructive evil from which God redeems us, then a person would be almost justified in rejecting the Church. We must be careful to distinguish the gift of Christ as a redemption from evil and an infusion of Grace into the world DESPITE evil, from a spurious and hasty implication of God in evil, or a suggestion that God needs evil or wills it in order to yield good for us.
5.21.2010 | 12:46pm
james wilson says:
It is the very business of Sister McBride to know of the success of Dr Zwicke. It does not speak well for her that she does not.
That the patient did not have motivation to keep the baby is what matters. The opinions of others do not matter a fig.
That the patient did not have motivation to keep the baby is what matters. The opinions of others do not matter a fig.
5.21.2010 | 1:02pm
David Mills says:
Not to steal readers away from discussing Elizabeth's moving essay, but we have just posted a second article on this issue. In "Excommunicating Intentions," Michael Liccione takes up the vexing question of whether the sister really did incur an automatic excommunication. It can be found at:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/05/excommunicating-intentions
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/05/excommunicating-intentions
5.21.2010 | 1:03pm
Safepres says:
I understand your position, but I think it goes too far. I believe that this abortion did qualify as an indirect one because it was performed to save the woman's life. That doesn't mean that I think that the hospital should have been forced to perform the procedure or that abortion was the only way to handle that problem. However, I could not in good conscience force someone else to risk her life for her unborn child, even if I would. I feel like THAT would be arrogant because it would be saying that I, and not God, have the right to guide her decision. I am pro life but I find it disturbing that you think this nun should be excommunicated for trying to follow the church's teachings to the best of her ability.
5.21.2010 | 1:04pm
David MIlls says:
Not to steal readers away from discussing Elizabeth's moving essay, but we have just posted a second article on this issue. In "Excommunicating Intentions," Michael Liccione takes up the vexing question of whether the sister really did incur an automatic excommunication. It can be found at:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/05/excommunicating-intentions
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/05/excommunicating-intentions
5.21.2010 | 1:10pm
Diane says:
Oversea at 8:05 and Me at 8:06-
What would you tell those four children who may now look in the mirror and know that the human life that was destroyed might have been one of them? That was their sibling who was destroyed because his or her emerging life was judged less worthy of existence than their mother's.
Would you lie to them when they asked HOW their sibling's life ended?
Have you ever spoken with a woman who chose to have an abortion and who later had children? For many, their greatest fear is that their children will discover this and will ask themselves, if my mother could have willfully destroyed that child, could she have willfully destroyed me?
The moral calculus performed to reach the decision to abort may be performed by these children later, and, as much as they love their mother, they may reach a different conclusion about whether one life should be destroyed for another. At least in part, their understanding of "mother" may cease to represent loving sacrifice in nurturing of life and instead represent willful choice by the least vulnerable.
Their knees might tremble at the thought and they might think, "there, but for the grace of God, could have been I". That is why the grace of God is so essential in situations such as these. Our relations with others extend beyond our physical presence and beyond any moment in time.
What would you tell those four children who may now look in the mirror and know that the human life that was destroyed might have been one of them? That was their sibling who was destroyed because his or her emerging life was judged less worthy of existence than their mother's.
Would you lie to them when they asked HOW their sibling's life ended?
Have you ever spoken with a woman who chose to have an abortion and who later had children? For many, their greatest fear is that their children will discover this and will ask themselves, if my mother could have willfully destroyed that child, could she have willfully destroyed me?
The moral calculus performed to reach the decision to abort may be performed by these children later, and, as much as they love their mother, they may reach a different conclusion about whether one life should be destroyed for another. At least in part, their understanding of "mother" may cease to represent loving sacrifice in nurturing of life and instead represent willful choice by the least vulnerable.
Their knees might tremble at the thought and they might think, "there, but for the grace of God, could have been I". That is why the grace of God is so essential in situations such as these. Our relations with others extend beyond our physical presence and beyond any moment in time.
5.21.2010 | 1:12pm
Gordon says:
Karen,
You have penned a wonderful and courageous insight. Thank you.
Peace and God Bless, and may Christ be the center of your life.
You have penned a wonderful and courageous insight. Thank you.
Peace and God Bless, and may Christ be the center of your life.
5.21.2010 | 1:15pm
Sensus Fidei says:
I am scared to ask James what exactly this means "That the patient did not have motivation to keep the baby is what matters."
5.21.2010 | 1:26pm
John Cummins says:
Please explore the question of how aware the Sister and the hospital staff should have been of Dr. Zwicke's techniques and success rate. This line of inquiry may not be as sexy as "mystery", "divinity" and so forth, but it is actually part of the intellectual scut work needed and practiced by those bygone heroes of making fine distinctions.
"what happens, within that continuum, when a woman who perhaps, in God’s plan, was supposed to die, instead chooses to kill the baby and remain alive?"
A serious, Catholic intellectual ought to know better than to pose such a sophomoric question for two reasons. First, it betrays a conception of God uniformed by philosophy and theology: be definition, there is no such thing as thwarting God's plans. This raises the question of whether God's love and faithfulness to each individual is less personal than is presumed in the colloquial Christian conception of God's love. One can thwart one's participation in God's plans and be damned, but this would then be according to God's plans, the mechanisms of which preserve both our free will and the deterministic nature of the matter and enegery we're made of, and of our nature.
Second, it's of the calibre of "Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it", or "Can God not be God". The answer to each is both yes and no, showing that the substance of the Gospel has paradoxes, surpassing Zen koans in depth and in effect, intended to break us.
"what happens, within that continuum, when a woman who perhaps, in God’s plan, was supposed to die, instead chooses to kill the baby and remain alive?"
A serious, Catholic intellectual ought to know better than to pose such a sophomoric question for two reasons. First, it betrays a conception of God uniformed by philosophy and theology: be definition, there is no such thing as thwarting God's plans. This raises the question of whether God's love and faithfulness to each individual is less personal than is presumed in the colloquial Christian conception of God's love. One can thwart one's participation in God's plans and be damned, but this would then be according to God's plans, the mechanisms of which preserve both our free will and the deterministic nature of the matter and enegery we're made of, and of our nature.
Second, it's of the calibre of "Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it", or "Can God not be God". The answer to each is both yes and no, showing that the substance of the Gospel has paradoxes, surpassing Zen koans in depth and in effect, intended to break us.
5.21.2010 | 1:30pm
cathyf says:
...St. Gianna Molla. She died rather than abort her baby.St. Gianna died to give her baby a chance to live. And her baby, in fact, survived. When a mother in the 11th week of pregnancy dies, the baby is aborted within a few minutes. It's a very fine hair indeed to split which says that killing a second innocent removes your culpability for killing the first one...
5.21.2010 | 1:45pm
Spencer says:
This event caused significant dialog between me and my son. Even after 12 years of Catholic education, he didn't know the Church's position on this matter. This is one of those times when it's difficult to stay aligned with Church teaching because to most people it seems heartless and cruel. Those of us with a normal faith (one, I believe, that also contains a great deal of doubt) can understand the position, but still feel uncomfortable discussing it with our more secular friends. We leave it to those with a strong faith to articulate the Church's position and therefore strengthen ours.
I learned about this and many other Church teachings when I was still in high school in 1963, and a member of the Episcopal Church, from the powerful movie “The Cardinal”. I think I’ll pick up a copy so my son can learn more about the Church and history. Although I’ve only seen it once, many of its scenes, including the childbirth scene and the KKK scene, stay vividly in my mind.
Finally, to add a little something to the mysterious plans of God discussion, ponder this. What if this aborted child had been allowed to be born, and that he or she had been given the ability, from God, to devise the procedure/medication/environment that greatly reduced the risk to future pregnant women who have pulmonary hypertension? The fact is we don’t know, and pretending we do know better than God is an unforgivable sin.
I learned about this and many other Church teachings when I was still in high school in 1963, and a member of the Episcopal Church, from the powerful movie “The Cardinal”. I think I’ll pick up a copy so my son can learn more about the Church and history. Although I’ve only seen it once, many of its scenes, including the childbirth scene and the KKK scene, stay vividly in my mind.
Finally, to add a little something to the mysterious plans of God discussion, ponder this. What if this aborted child had been allowed to be born, and that he or she had been given the ability, from God, to devise the procedure/medication/environment that greatly reduced the risk to future pregnant women who have pulmonary hypertension? The fact is we don’t know, and pretending we do know better than God is an unforgivable sin.
5.21.2010 | 1:57pm
JDD says:
The point is being misstated that the mother’s death is a sure-thing. The Catholic position is that, in the case of the mother surely dying, her life may be saved although the procedure takes the life of the child in her womb.
Jesurgislac asks “How can the bishop who argues that the right thing to do was to let her die think he knows better than God?”
The bishop is not arguing that the right thing to do is to let her die.
Freelunch says “How does anyone know that it is not God's will that the doctors save the mother's life through mundane medical means?
“Mundane medical means?” (You mean the abortion?) You also write “How is it courageous to tell a woman that she should take the very high risk of dying because maybe God wants her to die during her pregnancy?”
I agree it a weighty thing you suggest – which is different from non-courageous. But your words change around the meaning a bit I think. What if it’s reworded to say that God wants her to trust Him with her life in every circumstance, forever?
5:47 Karen, your response held my attention a bit more before you got to the part about “...being that women have no voice in your church.” Aside from the fact that the article was written by a woman, have you noticed all the women Saints in the church, the quotes by them in the Catechism, and the exalted place they are given in the Bible – the first to witness the Resurrection, the discipleship and authority of Christ’s mother, the steadfastness of women disciples during the Passion over most of the Twelve...?
But to this point: “The problem with your argument is that while it may make for great faith, it makes for dreadful public policy. Your church would make laws that enforce a 60% death rate on ALL women with this condition, not merely those who agree that they are less important than their fetuses. In this particular case, the woman was in a hospital far away from the doctor who's saved 40 women with the same condition...“
I think that’s a good set of points – but you’re arguing that moral teachings must be bent to public policy and society’s limitations. No, it’s the other way around. The infrastructure must be improved to remove obstacles to making good moral decisions.
Jesurgislac asks “How can the bishop who argues that the right thing to do was to let her die think he knows better than God?”
The bishop is not arguing that the right thing to do is to let her die.
Freelunch says “How does anyone know that it is not God's will that the doctors save the mother's life through mundane medical means?
“Mundane medical means?” (You mean the abortion?) You also write “How is it courageous to tell a woman that she should take the very high risk of dying because maybe God wants her to die during her pregnancy?”
I agree it a weighty thing you suggest – which is different from non-courageous. But your words change around the meaning a bit I think. What if it’s reworded to say that God wants her to trust Him with her life in every circumstance, forever?
5:47 Karen, your response held my attention a bit more before you got to the part about “...being that women have no voice in your church.” Aside from the fact that the article was written by a woman, have you noticed all the women Saints in the church, the quotes by them in the Catechism, and the exalted place they are given in the Bible – the first to witness the Resurrection, the discipleship and authority of Christ’s mother, the steadfastness of women disciples during the Passion over most of the Twelve...?
But to this point: “The problem with your argument is that while it may make for great faith, it makes for dreadful public policy. Your church would make laws that enforce a 60% death rate on ALL women with this condition, not merely those who agree that they are less important than their fetuses. In this particular case, the woman was in a hospital far away from the doctor who's saved 40 women with the same condition...“
I think that’s a good set of points – but you’re arguing that moral teachings must be bent to public policy and society’s limitations. No, it’s the other way around. The infrastructure must be improved to remove obstacles to making good moral decisions.
5.21.2010 | 2:00pm
JDD says:
Jonathan:
“That IS a shocking idea. I think it is shocking because it opens the door to the idea that God wills death (or illness or disability or...) for his creations to fulfill a plan of His. It begins to eat into the idea of free will,...”
No, it allows for a parent to use their free will to lay down his or her life, freely, for their children.
“That IS a shocking idea. I think it is shocking because it opens the door to the idea that God wills death (or illness or disability or...) for his creations to fulfill a plan of His. It begins to eat into the idea of free will,...”
No, it allows for a parent to use their free will to lay down his or her life, freely, for their children.
5.21.2010 | 2:17pm
Natalia says:
For many, their greatest fear is that their children will discover this and will ask themselves, if my mother could have willfully destroyed that child, could she have willfully destroyed me?
Well, my mom had an abortion before she had me, and I certainly don't go around beating my breast and self-importantly wailing "could she have willfully destroyed me?" I know she could have. But she chose to have me, and that makes all the difference. I know the tremendous power my mother wielded over me when I wasn't yet a person, but a part of her, and I respect that power.
Let's be honest about the McBride issue as well. The Catholic Church remains a powerful institution because most of the people at the top of its various chains of command are not exactly idiots. Despite the outward rhetoric of "pro-life at all costs!", they know that life can throw up all sorts of situations. So they effectively hide behind people like McBride - people who get to make the tough calls, and then be conveniently excommunicated. For as long as there are scapegoats like McBride around, the Church doesn't get too distracted from its various other PR problems.
This situation can be dressed up in all sorts of poetic spiritualist rhetoric. As both a writer a person who believes in God - albeit not a Catholic one - I can even go as far as admire said rhetoric's power, if not its message. Point still remains - outrage over other people's abortions is just a fig leaf for institutionalized misogyny.
Well, my mom had an abortion before she had me, and I certainly don't go around beating my breast and self-importantly wailing "could she have willfully destroyed me?" I know she could have. But she chose to have me, and that makes all the difference. I know the tremendous power my mother wielded over me when I wasn't yet a person, but a part of her, and I respect that power.
Let's be honest about the McBride issue as well. The Catholic Church remains a powerful institution because most of the people at the top of its various chains of command are not exactly idiots. Despite the outward rhetoric of "pro-life at all costs!", they know that life can throw up all sorts of situations. So they effectively hide behind people like McBride - people who get to make the tough calls, and then be conveniently excommunicated. For as long as there are scapegoats like McBride around, the Church doesn't get too distracted from its various other PR problems.
This situation can be dressed up in all sorts of poetic spiritualist rhetoric. As both a writer a person who believes in God - albeit not a Catholic one - I can even go as far as admire said rhetoric's power, if not its message. Point still remains - outrage over other people's abortions is just a fig leaf for institutionalized misogyny.
5.21.2010 | 2:18pm
Jonathan says:
JDD,
Free will allows one to say, indeed, that a parent may lay down their life for a child. But, God cannot will evil to accomplish His will in the universe. And I do call the death of a mother an evil, even if God will and does bring good out of it. If the mother were to die in giving birth to a child, the good of the infant would come of it. Though such a mother who lays down her life may be redeemed by her action, or her action may show her virtue, or the act may be Grace-filled (however one wishes to term it), the action is taken out of hope, in spite of the potential for evil.
--Jonathan
Free will allows one to say, indeed, that a parent may lay down their life for a child. But, God cannot will evil to accomplish His will in the universe. And I do call the death of a mother an evil, even if God will and does bring good out of it. If the mother were to die in giving birth to a child, the good of the infant would come of it. Though such a mother who lays down her life may be redeemed by her action, or her action may show her virtue, or the act may be Grace-filled (however one wishes to term it), the action is taken out of hope, in spite of the potential for evil.
--Jonathan
5.21.2010 | 2:35pm
starsdancing says:
It's pointless to play the what-if game. It's just as theoretically possible the baby in question could have grown up to be a serial killer as it theoretically possible for the baby to have grown up to be the world's greatest hero.
It's all well and good to kick this kind of stuff around as some form of intellectual exercise, but she is a real woman with a real family who was faced with an incredibly difficult situation, one very few of us will ever be faced with.
The men of the Church can excommunicate this one or that one, and theologians and armchair pundits can speculate and theorize and pontificate, but the only thing that matters is between this woman and God, and that is not ever any of our business. Ever.
There isn't a single person here (the women, anyway, because it's a nice, safe sure question for the men) who knows what she would do in that situation. It's one thing to imagine or posit, or wax eloquent about the teachings of the Church and how devout and loyal you are to the Magesterium when it's all just words in a combox.
It's something else altogether when you don't know if you will see the next dawn and you have four children at home.
I don't find anything graceful or beautiful or of God in all this intellectual masturbation about who did what or should've done what or what the Church says or what's technically licit and what isn't.
We all have our own crosses, our own demons, our own sins to worry about. Poking our noses into what we may or may not think is someone else's cross or sin isn't very becoming to anyone.
It's all well and good to kick this kind of stuff around as some form of intellectual exercise, but she is a real woman with a real family who was faced with an incredibly difficult situation, one very few of us will ever be faced with.
The men of the Church can excommunicate this one or that one, and theologians and armchair pundits can speculate and theorize and pontificate, but the only thing that matters is between this woman and God, and that is not ever any of our business. Ever.
There isn't a single person here (the women, anyway, because it's a nice, safe sure question for the men) who knows what she would do in that situation. It's one thing to imagine or posit, or wax eloquent about the teachings of the Church and how devout and loyal you are to the Magesterium when it's all just words in a combox.
It's something else altogether when you don't know if you will see the next dawn and you have four children at home.
I don't find anything graceful or beautiful or of God in all this intellectual masturbation about who did what or should've done what or what the Church says or what's technically licit and what isn't.
We all have our own crosses, our own demons, our own sins to worry about. Poking our noses into what we may or may not think is someone else's cross or sin isn't very becoming to anyone.
5.21.2010 | 2:46pm
Joe Z says:
"Trained to value feelings over fine distinctions, moderns may not like it, but there is a difference between a procedure that “saves the mother’s life but (indirectly) destroys the baby in the process,” and one that “destroys the baby (directly) to save the mother’s life.”"
This is absolutely right, but it is not the same point as the "nearly certain" business at all. There is still a difference between these two procedures - a moral difference - even if there is no difference in certainty at all, or even if the immoral action has less of a chance of ending in the baby's death than the moral one does. The issue of certainty is orthogonal to the point made in the above passage, and it confuses the general issue - though there is a particular point about other possibilities in cases of this particular medical condition. The general issue is whether intended consequences are morally equivalent to foreseen-but-not-intended consequences. And the answer is: no, they are not morally equivalent. In one case the baby is killed as the means to an end; in the other case some means to the end is carried out, whereby the baby also dies. Notice that this has nothing to do with the certainty of whether the baby is in fact going to die - it has to do with how the action relates to that effect, not with the certainty that the effect will come about.
This is absolutely right, but it is not the same point as the "nearly certain" business at all. There is still a difference between these two procedures - a moral difference - even if there is no difference in certainty at all, or even if the immoral action has less of a chance of ending in the baby's death than the moral one does. The issue of certainty is orthogonal to the point made in the above passage, and it confuses the general issue - though there is a particular point about other possibilities in cases of this particular medical condition. The general issue is whether intended consequences are morally equivalent to foreseen-but-not-intended consequences. And the answer is: no, they are not morally equivalent. In one case the baby is killed as the means to an end; in the other case some means to the end is carried out, whereby the baby also dies. Notice that this has nothing to do with the certainty of whether the baby is in fact going to die - it has to do with how the action relates to that effect, not with the certainty that the effect will come about.
5.21.2010 | 2:51pm
RLJ says:
The answer is contained not only Catholic doctrine but in natural law: An evil (abrtion) may not be done in order to produce a good (mother's life guaranteed).
As far as women being "victim" of men, to quote a friend, "That dog won't hunt." The woman is in control of herself, but not another's deeply held moral truths.
How 'bout lots more doctors learn Dr. Zwicke's method...we might even get "statistically significant" data.
God bless
As far as women being "victim" of men, to quote a friend, "That dog won't hunt." The woman is in control of herself, but not another's deeply held moral truths.
How 'bout lots more doctors learn Dr. Zwicke's method...we might even get "statistically significant" data.
God bless
5.21.2010 | 3:02pm
starsdancing says:
If an evil may never be committed so that a good may come about, please explain the Church's stance on self-defense and war?
5.21.2010 | 3:04pm
Chuck says:
This is a wonderful essay.
Reading through the comments, I am reminded again that we all see life through lenses colored by our own view of the world. Some of the commentators take the words of this essay and twist them in ways that I never would have imagined.
Reading through the comments, I am reminded again that we all see life through lenses colored by our own view of the world. Some of the commentators take the words of this essay and twist them in ways that I never would have imagined.
5.21.2010 | 3:08pm
JDD says:
"If the mother were to die in giving birth to a child, the good of the infant would come of it. Though such a mother who lays down her life may be redeemed by her action, or her action may show her virtue, or the act may be Grace-filled (however one wishes to term it), the action is taken out of hope, in spite of the potential for evil. " --Jonathan
By this reasoning, every time I put myself in any danger - any danger at all - for the life of my child, (and more so if I have other children to take care of,) I am commiting an act with potential for evil.
If I run in front of a car to save my son - knowing that I may lose my life which my son depends on for his survival - then I have commited an evil?
By this reasoning, every time I put myself in any danger - any danger at all - for the life of my child, (and more so if I have other children to take care of,) I am commiting an act with potential for evil.
If I run in front of a car to save my son - knowing that I may lose my life which my son depends on for his survival - then I have commited an evil?
5.21.2010 | 3:20pm
Overseas says:
Dear Diane (10:10)
Perhaps you misread me. Is it the woman’s choice whether she stays alive to mother four kids or whether she dies leaving four or five orphans? Or is it the bishop’s choice?
Perhaps you misread me. Is it the woman’s choice whether she stays alive to mother four kids or whether she dies leaving four or five orphans? Or is it the bishop’s choice?
5.21.2010 | 3:24pm
Ben says:
RLJ,
You say that natural law dictates that an evil may not be done in order to produce a good. I confess that if natural law dictates this, I have been woefully unaware of it. Regardless, do you think that such a categorical statement can be a useful moral guide? Is it immoral to kill another person in self-defense, or to lie in order to prevent harm from coming to someone? I refrain from explicitly posing the overused "Gestapo at the door" scenario, but I think your position has difficulty answering questions of that sort.
You say that natural law dictates that an evil may not be done in order to produce a good. I confess that if natural law dictates this, I have been woefully unaware of it. Regardless, do you think that such a categorical statement can be a useful moral guide? Is it immoral to kill another person in self-defense, or to lie in order to prevent harm from coming to someone? I refrain from explicitly posing the overused "Gestapo at the door" scenario, but I think your position has difficulty answering questions of that sort.
5.21.2010 | 3:29pm
Paco says:
What might be a key quote by Dr Zwicke was lost in the cut above . Dr. Dianne Zwicke said. "The issue is that the moms die three days after delivery because their right heart doesn't handle all the fluids and changes hormonally after you deliver.” So if the mother does not die until three days after delivery, how does an 11 week pregnancy get flagged as requiring urgent surgery? Of course we do not have all the facts because the patients records are private but it does appear that there may have been a bias towards urgency and abortion due to the statistical post delivery results for the mother. Delay may not have changed the decision but it certainly would have given more time to search for alternatives such as Dr Zwicke's method.
5.21.2010 | 3:56pm
JGalt says:
http://hypertension-pulmonary.blogspot.com/2010/01/pregnancy-in-primary-pulmonary_2832.html
The mortality appears to be 30% in large studies at the present. Better results are seen from specialized centers. This is by no means an almost certain death situation. This seems a case of fools going where angels fear to tread. If the mother desired an abortion she had plenty of time to seek one elsewhere. The hospital decided to play God implying that there was no choice here and that they were forced to abort. Note that we have these mortality figures because other mothers and other doctors chose to give life a chance. Pregnancy is discouraged in pulmonary hypertension but there are many that deliver and have uneventful pregnancies with proper care.
The mortality appears to be 30% in large studies at the present. Better results are seen from specialized centers. This is by no means an almost certain death situation. This seems a case of fools going where angels fear to tread. If the mother desired an abortion she had plenty of time to seek one elsewhere. The hospital decided to play God implying that there was no choice here and that they were forced to abort. Note that we have these mortality figures because other mothers and other doctors chose to give life a chance. Pregnancy is discouraged in pulmonary hypertension but there are many that deliver and have uneventful pregnancies with proper care.
5.21.2010 | 3:58pm
Kes says:
Would I be incorrect in assuming that you are not a medical doctor, Ms. Scalia? I ask because firstly, how can you judge, months away and miles later, how "nearly" certain the risk of death to this woman? You can't. You haven't personally examined her and have no training in cases of this sort. And you can't cite one (1) doctor, ten states away, who is pioneering a new treatment as Proof Positive that, under said doctor's care, she would have lived.
Secondly, your assertion that removal of ectopic pregnancies is an "indirect abortion" is a distinction without a difference. A woman diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy must have the blastocyst or embryo removed IMMEDIATELY, or she WILL DIE. Ectopic pregnancies are ALWAYS fatal, whether they "threaten to burst a fallopian tube" or not. The treatment for this condition is abortion, full stop, no equivocation. Although I suppose that abortion from anywhere that isn't a uterus isn't "really" abortion in Bizarro Catholic World.
Secondly, your assertion that removal of ectopic pregnancies is an "indirect abortion" is a distinction without a difference. A woman diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy must have the blastocyst or embryo removed IMMEDIATELY, or she WILL DIE. Ectopic pregnancies are ALWAYS fatal, whether they "threaten to burst a fallopian tube" or not. The treatment for this condition is abortion, full stop, no equivocation. Although I suppose that abortion from anywhere that isn't a uterus isn't "really" abortion in Bizarro Catholic World.
5.21.2010 | 4:09pm
Me says:
To answer your question: Have you ever spoken with a woman who chose to have an abortion and who later had children?
Yes I have, and she would not exist had the abortion not occurred. She's very glad her mother aborted the previous one. She values her relationship with her mother.
For many, their greatest fear is that their children will discover this and will ask themselves, if my mother could have willfully destroyed that child, could she have willfully destroyed me?
No two humans are the same, and no two pregnancies are, either.
I would not lie to the children, but it is not my place to tell them anything as I don't know them and have no relationship with them. I didn't kill their mother, nor would I advocating killing their mother as Bishop Olmstead would have the hospital do.
Decision makers who cause needless deaths should have to own up to those deaths. Real human beings who have real human lives.
Yes I have, and she would not exist had the abortion not occurred. She's very glad her mother aborted the previous one. She values her relationship with her mother.
For many, their greatest fear is that their children will discover this and will ask themselves, if my mother could have willfully destroyed that child, could she have willfully destroyed me?
No two humans are the same, and no two pregnancies are, either.
I would not lie to the children, but it is not my place to tell them anything as I don't know them and have no relationship with them. I didn't kill their mother, nor would I advocating killing their mother as Bishop Olmstead would have the hospital do.
Decision makers who cause needless deaths should have to own up to those deaths. Real human beings who have real human lives.
5.21.2010 | 4:28pm
Bruce in Kansas says:
Congratulations, Anchoress!
It is apparent from the comments that you have been linked to some wider media.
Your influence grows. Well done.
Keep blogging the Truth in love; it continues to help us to become what we are.
It is apparent from the comments that you have been linked to some wider media.
Your influence grows. Well done.
Keep blogging the Truth in love; it continues to help us to become what we are.
5.21.2010 | 4:32pm
Ziggle says:
Dear Ms. Scalia --
I'm afraid that your analysis is fundamentally flawed. Ectopic pregnancy is not certain to cause death of the mother. In fact, quite a reasonable percentage of ectopic pregnancies are resolved naturally with the body resorbing the embryo. A tiny percentage of ectopic pregnancies take root outside the uterus and fallopian tubes, and even at rare occasion mature enough to allow a surgical delivery of a healthy child.
So the Church has no inherent "certainty" that an ectopic pregnancy will cause the death of the mother if untreated. Yes, it is very, very likely to cause death or enormous medical harm to the mother, but as you point out, that is not the same as certainty.
Additionally, there are non-surgical (methotrexate, a cancer drug) and micro-surgical techniques used to successfully remove the embryo without the loss of the woman's fallopian tube. Should the Church insist that the woman be maimed with unnecessary surgery in order to accomplish the same life-preserving result as removing her fallopian tube containing the ectopic pregnancy? Is there some greater good in cutting her open? Is it nicer to God? Or is calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, with about as much effect?
I'm afraid that your analysis is fundamentally flawed. Ectopic pregnancy is not certain to cause death of the mother. In fact, quite a reasonable percentage of ectopic pregnancies are resolved naturally with the body resorbing the embryo. A tiny percentage of ectopic pregnancies take root outside the uterus and fallopian tubes, and even at rare occasion mature enough to allow a surgical delivery of a healthy child.
So the Church has no inherent "certainty" that an ectopic pregnancy will cause the death of the mother if untreated. Yes, it is very, very likely to cause death or enormous medical harm to the mother, but as you point out, that is not the same as certainty.
Additionally, there are non-surgical (methotrexate, a cancer drug) and micro-surgical techniques used to successfully remove the embryo without the loss of the woman's fallopian tube. Should the Church insist that the woman be maimed with unnecessary surgery in order to accomplish the same life-preserving result as removing her fallopian tube containing the ectopic pregnancy? Is there some greater good in cutting her open? Is it nicer to God? Or is calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, with about as much effect?
5.21.2010 | 4:32pm
RLJ says:
Ben,
No, killing someone in self-defense is not doing evil to do good because, if that is the only way to save your life or stop the rape, killing a killer (or rapist, etc.)is not evil, but killing a person who is performing an evil act himself.
Lying to save a life is neither evil. "Is your mother home?" the salesman asks.
"No, sir," you reply, knowing full well she is in another room. Your full answer is "She is not home to you," understanding that she does not want to see the salesman.
This may sound like prevarication, but it is a lesser form of, "Do you have any Jews in there?"
No, killing someone in self-defense is not doing evil to do good because, if that is the only way to save your life or stop the rape, killing a killer (or rapist, etc.)is not evil, but killing a person who is performing an evil act himself.
Lying to save a life is neither evil. "Is your mother home?" the salesman asks.
"No, sir," you reply, knowing full well she is in another room. Your full answer is "She is not home to you," understanding that she does not want to see the salesman.
This may sound like prevarication, but it is a lesser form of, "Do you have any Jews in there?"
5.21.2010 | 5:06pm
Diane says:
Overseas - The question is not the one you posed. The question is: in all the analysis and discussion regarding the level of certainty and probable outcomes under the limited options available, how much discussion went on regarding the consequences, immediate and going forward, of choosing this particular action given the truth that the life of the mother and her offspring were inextricably tied together and both might have survived?
If loss of the child's life was a certainty and the mother could be saved, taking action would not devalue life. If not certain, one life is preferred over another.
That is what Sr. McBride should have been clear about. Elective abortion under those circumstances should not be encouraged merely as a lifesaving medical choice. That is wrapping the truth in a lie. Under those circumstances, elective abortion is a moral choice made to fix the odds in a desired favor. A Catholic in such circumstances should have had the opportunity to have been made aware of what the Church has discerned as truth when they are making such decisions involving life and conscience. Only then are they making an informed decision.
Sr. McBride failed in her duty as a Catholic, while attempting to carry out her responsibilities as a medical administrator in a Catholic institution. The Bishop's action addresses Sr. McBride's choice, not the mother's.
If loss of the child's life was a certainty and the mother could be saved, taking action would not devalue life. If not certain, one life is preferred over another.
That is what Sr. McBride should have been clear about. Elective abortion under those circumstances should not be encouraged merely as a lifesaving medical choice. That is wrapping the truth in a lie. Under those circumstances, elective abortion is a moral choice made to fix the odds in a desired favor. A Catholic in such circumstances should have had the opportunity to have been made aware of what the Church has discerned as truth when they are making such decisions involving life and conscience. Only then are they making an informed decision.
Sr. McBride failed in her duty as a Catholic, while attempting to carry out her responsibilities as a medical administrator in a Catholic institution. The Bishop's action addresses Sr. McBride's choice, not the mother's.
5.21.2010 | 5:14pm
starsdancing says:
RLJ -- Is dropping a bomb on an area where innocent civilians are known to live in order to take out a terrorist cell evil or good?
Also, thank you to the commentor who reminded us that ectopic pregnancy involves any implantation outside the uterus, not just the most dangerous scenario in which implantation is in the fallopian tube. Some of the clearly uninformed medical commentary here makes me wonder if the men of the Church are even remotely up to speed with 21st century medical knowledge.
Also, thank you to the commentor who reminded us that ectopic pregnancy involves any implantation outside the uterus, not just the most dangerous scenario in which implantation is in the fallopian tube. Some of the clearly uninformed medical commentary here makes me wonder if the men of the Church are even remotely up to speed with 21st century medical knowledge.
5.21.2010 | 5:45pm
Bender says:
Cross-posted at the blog --
The problem is in the use of the ambiguous word "abortion," as in the cases of "indirect abortion" and "direct abortion." To be sure, the crucial distinction is between direct and indirect, but the word "abortion" in and of itself typically means what is meant by "direct." That is, in common usage, the word abortion is meant to describe the intentional killing of the unborn human life.
When one says "direct abortion," then there is no confusion because the word "direct" means that the intent is to have a dead baby. But when one starts speaking of "indirect abortion," that is, an act where the specific intention is not to cause death, but is merely a secondary consequence, then the confusion starts because, again, the word "abortion" is generally held to mean an intent to not end up with a live baby. It is an oxymoron.
OK smart guy, then what should the right term be? A better term for this situation would be "premature delivery," where the intent and the act is to attempt to save the life of both the mother and the unborn child, even if, because of the early stage of the pregnancy, the chances of saving the baby are slim. However, that means utilizing a method that has a chance for success, no matter how slight, and would therefore exclude the typical slice-and-dice / vacuum method (that is, an "abortion"), which is inherently lethal to the child, and serves no purpose except to result in a dead baby.
And then, going beyond the oxymoron of "indirect abortion," to confuse things further, "ethicists" started coming up with ideas like "double effect," which only confuse things more. And needlessly so, since there was already well reasoned explanations that were developed over hundreds of years of actual cases in the Anglo-American common law of homicide, murder, manslaughter, etc..
The problem is in the use of the ambiguous word "abortion," as in the cases of "indirect abortion" and "direct abortion." To be sure, the crucial distinction is between direct and indirect, but the word "abortion" in and of itself typically means what is meant by "direct." That is, in common usage, the word abortion is meant to describe the intentional killing of the unborn human life.
When one says "direct abortion," then there is no confusion because the word "direct" means that the intent is to have a dead baby. But when one starts speaking of "indirect abortion," that is, an act where the specific intention is not to cause death, but is merely a secondary consequence, then the confusion starts because, again, the word "abortion" is generally held to mean an intent to not end up with a live baby. It is an oxymoron.
OK smart guy, then what should the right term be? A better term for this situation would be "premature delivery," where the intent and the act is to attempt to save the life of both the mother and the unborn child, even if, because of the early stage of the pregnancy, the chances of saving the baby are slim. However, that means utilizing a method that has a chance for success, no matter how slight, and would therefore exclude the typical slice-and-dice / vacuum method (that is, an "abortion"), which is inherently lethal to the child, and serves no purpose except to result in a dead baby.
And then, going beyond the oxymoron of "indirect abortion," to confuse things further, "ethicists" started coming up with ideas like "double effect," which only confuse things more. And needlessly so, since there was already well reasoned explanations that were developed over hundreds of years of actual cases in the Anglo-American common law of homicide, murder, manslaughter, etc..
5.21.2010 | 5:47pm
Paco says:
Just my opinion but the the Church does not necessarily need to keep up with 21st century knowledge since the issue with ectopic pregnancy was not decided based on the name but on the underlying certainty of death for both mother and child at the time the issue was presented for review. If our current ability allows for additional outcomes than the answer would be resolved as noted by the Anchoress.
5.21.2010 | 6:11pm
Overseas says:
Ziggle
Well said.
Diane
I think I know what question I posed! There’s no suggestion that the abortion was performed against the patient’s wishes: She wanted to live. The bishop would be accountable for her death if the decision to withhold treatment was his own. Is this normal in your parts? That emergency cases in Catholic hospitals are treated accordance with Catholic dogma? I wonder if patients in such hospitals feel safe in the hands of doctors so constrained. What does the law say?
‘If loss of the child's life was a certainty and the mother could be saved, taking action would not devalue life. If not certain, one life is preferred over another.’
First trimester embryos aren’t viable. Anyway, who does the ‘preferring’ of whose life?
Well said.
Diane
I think I know what question I posed! There’s no suggestion that the abortion was performed against the patient’s wishes: She wanted to live. The bishop would be accountable for her death if the decision to withhold treatment was his own. Is this normal in your parts? That emergency cases in Catholic hospitals are treated accordance with Catholic dogma? I wonder if patients in such hospitals feel safe in the hands of doctors so constrained. What does the law say?
‘If loss of the child's life was a certainty and the mother could be saved, taking action would not devalue life. If not certain, one life is preferred over another.’
First trimester embryos aren’t viable. Anyway, who does the ‘preferring’ of whose life?
5.21.2010 | 6:21pm
James says:
Let's get real on this. Most abortions are carried out to avoid an inconvenience. I know: I've been there, in so far as a mere man can. The UK law legalising abortion was only meant to apply to medical conditions. A coach and horses was driven through this from day one. Unscrupulous doctors could always to sign off the the necessary medical consents regardless, perjuring themselves.
Mea maxima culpa.
Mea maxima culpa.
5.21.2010 | 6:22pm
starsdancing says:
Paco, as someone pointed out, and as is evidenced by documented case histories, some ectopic pregnancies result in live births.
So the certainty of the outcome is not a given in all ectopic pregnancies.
If each situation is decided on an in-the-moment, case-by-case basis, I think that's the best argument I've seen yet in support of this woman's decision and Sister McBride's difficult and heart-rending approval.
If the Church is going to dictate the morality of women's choices, they had darned well better get up to speed on current medical knowledge, otherwise they're no better than the men of the Church who used to ascribe conditions such as Tourette's or epiliepsy or schizophrenia to demonic possession and treat it accordingly.
We are real people living in a real world. If the men of the Church want to be even remotely relevant, they had better make some effort to understand that world, otherwise they become a bunch of moldy old museum peices.
Becaue too many men of the Church clearly think they're above the great unwashed masses of everyday folk, especially those who engage in the distasteful and messy business of procreation, more and more everyday folk are turning away from the Church, and not because they all aspire to be Lindsay Lohan or whoever the male equivalent is, but because they're exhausted and drained and feel betrayed and let down and lied to and jacked around by the Church. They're also learning that God is everywhere, fully, really, wholly and truly present EVERYWHERE, and they don't need a middleman to broker the relationship.
If the men of the Church wish to continue their roles as finger-wagging old scolds who can't even be bothered to avail themselves of easily accessible medical knowledge, so be it, but they'd better work on acquiring some kind of marketable skill because the great unwashed masses may not feel like keeping them in their golden mansions much longer.
So the certainty of the outcome is not a given in all ectopic pregnancies.
If each situation is decided on an in-the-moment, case-by-case basis, I think that's the best argument I've seen yet in support of this woman's decision and Sister McBride's difficult and heart-rending approval.
If the Church is going to dictate the morality of women's choices, they had darned well better get up to speed on current medical knowledge, otherwise they're no better than the men of the Church who used to ascribe conditions such as Tourette's or epiliepsy or schizophrenia to demonic possession and treat it accordingly.
We are real people living in a real world. If the men of the Church want to be even remotely relevant, they had better make some effort to understand that world, otherwise they become a bunch of moldy old museum peices.
Becaue too many men of the Church clearly think they're above the great unwashed masses of everyday folk, especially those who engage in the distasteful and messy business of procreation, more and more everyday folk are turning away from the Church, and not because they all aspire to be Lindsay Lohan or whoever the male equivalent is, but because they're exhausted and drained and feel betrayed and let down and lied to and jacked around by the Church. They're also learning that God is everywhere, fully, really, wholly and truly present EVERYWHERE, and they don't need a middleman to broker the relationship.
If the men of the Church wish to continue their roles as finger-wagging old scolds who can't even be bothered to avail themselves of easily accessible medical knowledge, so be it, but they'd better work on acquiring some kind of marketable skill because the great unwashed masses may not feel like keeping them in their golden mansions much longer.
5.21.2010 | 6:29pm
James says:
I should have said that I am not RC but basically agree with your stance on this issue. A reformed liberal!
5.21.2010 | 8:54pm
mark says:
St. Gianna Molla said it perfectly; "save the baby!" http://www.saintgianna.org/main.htm
When did we become so obsessed with self preservation that our children must die so we can live???
St. Gianna, pray for us!
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostrae!!
mark
When did we become so obsessed with self preservation that our children must die so we can live???
St. Gianna, pray for us!
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus nunc et in hora mortis nostrae!!
mark
5.21.2010 | 9:06pm
mark says:
starsdancing,
you are so wrong on every level. First the "men of the church" have always valued the life of the mother as the first priority.
What we all know to be correct is that murdering a baby by abortion, while convenient to prevent lawsuits against doctors & hospitals, is never, never, never, acceptable & is always a grave evil!
Convenience is never a justification for murdering an innocent baby by abortion.
If the medical procedure required to save the life of the mother inadvertently results in the baby's death, we are all sad, but have no guilt because we took the easy way out & aborted an innocent baby that may have survived with the medical technology we have today.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
you are so wrong on every level. First the "men of the church" have always valued the life of the mother as the first priority.
What we all know to be correct is that murdering a baby by abortion, while convenient to prevent lawsuits against doctors & hospitals, is never, never, never, acceptable & is always a grave evil!
Convenience is never a justification for murdering an innocent baby by abortion.
If the medical procedure required to save the life of the mother inadvertently results in the baby's death, we are all sad, but have no guilt because we took the easy way out & aborted an innocent baby that may have survived with the medical technology we have today.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
5.21.2010 | 9:59pm
vitae says:
starsdancing,
How do you know that Sr. McBride's decision was "difficult and heart-rending"? I also find it a bit odd that you keep railing against "the men of the Church" given that one of the key figures in this situation, Sr. McBride, is a woman, a member of a Catholic religious order, and in a position of authority.
I also find it interesting that, in an earlier comment, you speak of the "baby" in question, but you later state that "the only thing that matters is between this woman and God" -- so where does the baby figure in this situation? Given that you believe it is, indeed, a baby, and that these are "difficult and heart-rending decisions," I can only conclude that you support abortion even though you recognize that it is the deliberate taking of a human life. All the hand-wringing in the world won't make something wrong into something right.
How do you know that Sr. McBride's decision was "difficult and heart-rending"? I also find it a bit odd that you keep railing against "the men of the Church" given that one of the key figures in this situation, Sr. McBride, is a woman, a member of a Catholic religious order, and in a position of authority.
I also find it interesting that, in an earlier comment, you speak of the "baby" in question, but you later state that "the only thing that matters is between this woman and God" -- so where does the baby figure in this situation? Given that you believe it is, indeed, a baby, and that these are "difficult and heart-rending decisions," I can only conclude that you support abortion even though you recognize that it is the deliberate taking of a human life. All the hand-wringing in the world won't make something wrong into something right.
5.21.2010 | 10:11pm
Peggy Coffey says:
The church would excommunicate these people for saving the life of the mother of four children, but would allow Nancy Pelosi to dictate to them and be vocally pro choice and still be allowed to call herself Catholic? And they wonder why people lkeave the church.
5.21.2010 | 11:14pm
freelunch says:
I also find it a bit odd that you keep railing against "the men of the Church" given that one of the key figures in this situation, Sr. McBride, is a woman, a member of a Catholic religious order, and in a position of authority.
Of course she is the one who got punished by the men for showing compassion.
Of course she is the one who got punished by the men for showing compassion.
5.21.2010 | 11:24pm
Difficult circumstances. It may be that with a degree of severe pulmonary hypertension and hemodynamic instability the demise of both mother and child would be likely to occur imminently. Might this change the moral calculus? Is there a moral theologian in house?
Alternatively, there may be options to work with experienced cardiologists and high risk obstetricians in some medical centers to work towards the possibility of a good outcome for mother and child if the PH is not too advanced.
Alternatively, there may be options to work with experienced cardiologists and high risk obstetricians in some medical centers to work towards the possibility of a good outcome for mother and child if the PH is not too advanced.
5.21.2010 | 11:24pm
Pentimento says:
It is important to clarify that Sr. McBride's bishop did not, in fact, excommunicate her. Canon 1398 decrees that anyone who has consciously participated in an abortion is automatically (latae sententiae) excommunicated. Bishop Olmstead merely stated that fact in regard to Sr. McBride's actions. The purpose of the excommunication, however, is to inspire penitence and reconciliation in the one who has committed the offense. While technically only the bishop can lift the excommunication, the bishops of virtually all dioceses worldwide have given their priests the power to do so in the sacrament of confession.
5.21.2010 | 11:47pm
Jackie says:
I am well versed in the moral nuances of the arguments on both sides of this issue. I am, however, distressed by the reliance on a hope that verges on childish--not childlike--magical thinking. This disease is brutal--a thief--without the extra physical burden of pregnancy. The Roman Catholic Church prohibits effective birth control, yet it would consign this woman to a life without the comfort of marital intimacy, and almost certain death when pregnancy results.
As for the "what if this child found the cure/initiated world peace/fill in the blank," that takes magical thinking to a stratospheric height.
As for the "what if this child found the cure/initiated world peace/fill in the blank," that takes magical thinking to a stratospheric height.
5.22.2010 | 12:00am
vitae says:
@freelunch: "Of course she is the one who got punished by the men for showing compassion."
Re: "getting punished." Please see Pentimento's excellent response. Excommunication is not, per se, a punishment -- its goal is to instill, as Pentimento states, penitence and thus lead to reconciliation. Which is what a bishop, as pastor of souls, is charged with doing. If someone in your care is doing something that puts his/her physical life in peril, you would have an obligation to warn them and thus keep them from endangering themselves further. Even more so when someone in your care is endangering their immortal soul. Excommunication (hopefully) prevents that person from committing further mortal sin by receiving the Eucharist unworthily. And (also hopefully) gives them a serious spiritual wake-up call.
Re: "showing compassion." If you read this entire post, as well as that of Michael Liccione in today's On the Square, you can see that many highly thoughtful Catholics, Christians and others disagree on the complex issues this case presents. Simply waving one's hand and saying that Sr. McBride showed compassion but that those "punishing men of the Church" (and hence all with whom you disagree) are not doing so is to dismiss the very serious and complex theological questions involved. Not to mention the fact that the other, often overlooked, figure in this situation (namely the baby) might not agree with you that this act was particularly compassionate.
Re: "getting punished." Please see Pentimento's excellent response. Excommunication is not, per se, a punishment -- its goal is to instill, as Pentimento states, penitence and thus lead to reconciliation. Which is what a bishop, as pastor of souls, is charged with doing. If someone in your care is doing something that puts his/her physical life in peril, you would have an obligation to warn them and thus keep them from endangering themselves further. Even more so when someone in your care is endangering their immortal soul. Excommunication (hopefully) prevents that person from committing further mortal sin by receiving the Eucharist unworthily. And (also hopefully) gives them a serious spiritual wake-up call.
Re: "showing compassion." If you read this entire post, as well as that of Michael Liccione in today's On the Square, you can see that many highly thoughtful Catholics, Christians and others disagree on the complex issues this case presents. Simply waving one's hand and saying that Sr. McBride showed compassion but that those "punishing men of the Church" (and hence all with whom you disagree) are not doing so is to dismiss the very serious and complex theological questions involved. Not to mention the fact that the other, often overlooked, figure in this situation (namely the baby) might not agree with you that this act was particularly compassionate.
5.22.2010 | 12:24am
Redfeather says:
Holy Mother Church, in her wisdom, provides man- and woman-kind with a very lucid and life-affirming answer in this instance, as Anchoress illustrates. Why embrace the violence of abortion so early in the pregnancy? A watch and see approach could have been taken. When and if it became clear the mother and child would die, any rightly aligned Catholic Church affiliated hospital would NOT send the woman down the road to the smarmy Planned Parenthood, but would perform a therapeutic abortion on the premises. If it never became clear who would live and who would die, leave it to God and let all be at peace with that. Why must we torment outselves with the "what ifs".
Sr. McBride is rightly excommunicated. May she repent for having participated in evil and scandalized faithful Catholics.
Sr. McBride is rightly excommunicated. May she repent for having participated in evil and scandalized faithful Catholics.
5.22.2010 | 12:37am
starsdancing says:
Mark, that's a little unfair to reduce this woman's situation to some self-indulgant, self-obsessed act. To think this was anything but a deeply difficult and painful decision for her, or for Sister McBride (all my experiences with nuns is that they're thoughtful, loving, nurturing women, and every nun I ever knew would have been broken hearted for this woman, no matter what their take on the right or wrong of the situation).
The reason I speak of the "men of the Church" is that this situation is unique to women. Men will never have to face this particular choice, ever. Therefore male responses fall a little flat compared to women's. It's easy to be an armchair pundit on this and treat it all as a theological puzzle, or whathaveyou, but she's a real woman, a flesh-and-blood human being, no more or less loved and wanted and desired by God, not now, not ever.
She's not a theoretical factor in a theoretical story.
She lay there in that bed agonizing over her baby's life, hers, and the lives of her other children, weighing impossible odds, and doing the best she could possibly do, as did Sister McBride.
None of us were there, and God spared all of us this same cross. Think ya could try to work up a little Christian compassion and kindness under the circumstances, maybe?
vitae, the baby is a real human being, too, and ought to be mourned as such. As I said, it's a heart breaking situation. Heart breaking, and just as heart breaking no matter which way it had gone. There is no "winner" here. There's just terrible sadness all around, and, thankfully, incredible love for all, too, from the God who created the woman, her child and Sister McBride.
I do not support on-demand abortion, and I do understand that abortion takes life. In THIS situation, the primary intent was to save the woman's life by terminating a pregnancy that would have killed her AND resulted in the death of the baby. Under these circumstances, the termination of the pregnancy, to me, and obviously to this woman and to Sister McBride and other members of this woman's medical team and of the hospital, the termination of this pregnancy was a morally licit decision.
mark -- this was hardly a choice born of "convenience". Please do not trivialize the plight of this woman.
To do so, and then, practically in the same breath, claim the men of the Church have always had the life of the woman as their first priority (you're obviously not female, nor have you been Catholic as long as I have) is more than a bit disingenuous. Also, this situation was not cavalier or superficial -- this was a situation in which the medical possibilities had been examined and, as most of the true medical professionals here have already confirmed, in which the mother's life was in serious, serious danger.
The reason I speak of the "men of the Church" is that this situation is unique to women. Men will never have to face this particular choice, ever. Therefore male responses fall a little flat compared to women's. It's easy to be an armchair pundit on this and treat it all as a theological puzzle, or whathaveyou, but she's a real woman, a flesh-and-blood human being, no more or less loved and wanted and desired by God, not now, not ever.
She's not a theoretical factor in a theoretical story.
She lay there in that bed agonizing over her baby's life, hers, and the lives of her other children, weighing impossible odds, and doing the best she could possibly do, as did Sister McBride.
None of us were there, and God spared all of us this same cross. Think ya could try to work up a little Christian compassion and kindness under the circumstances, maybe?
vitae, the baby is a real human being, too, and ought to be mourned as such. As I said, it's a heart breaking situation. Heart breaking, and just as heart breaking no matter which way it had gone. There is no "winner" here. There's just terrible sadness all around, and, thankfully, incredible love for all, too, from the God who created the woman, her child and Sister McBride.
I do not support on-demand abortion, and I do understand that abortion takes life. In THIS situation, the primary intent was to save the woman's life by terminating a pregnancy that would have killed her AND resulted in the death of the baby. Under these circumstances, the termination of the pregnancy, to me, and obviously to this woman and to Sister McBride and other members of this woman's medical team and of the hospital, the termination of this pregnancy was a morally licit decision.
mark -- this was hardly a choice born of "convenience". Please do not trivialize the plight of this woman.
To do so, and then, practically in the same breath, claim the men of the Church have always had the life of the woman as their first priority (you're obviously not female, nor have you been Catholic as long as I have) is more than a bit disingenuous. Also, this situation was not cavalier or superficial -- this was a situation in which the medical possibilities had been examined and, as most of the true medical professionals here have already confirmed, in which the mother's life was in serious, serious danger.
5.22.2010 | 1:23am
Glenn says:
In this technologically advanced age, there is no reason that a hospital could not call or video-conference or even IM with Dr. Zwicke or her staff to get help on treating this case. Unless Dr. Zwicke possesses a one-of-a-kind piece of medical machinery that is vital to her treatment plans, there is really no excuse that Sr. McBride's hospital did not try to contact Aurora St Luke's or something.
This was a wonderfully written article and I will pass it along to those with whom I have been debating on facebook when the subject (and subsequent Catholic persecution) pops up.
This was a wonderfully written article and I will pass it along to those with whom I have been debating on facebook when the subject (and subsequent Catholic persecution) pops up.
5.22.2010 | 1:24am
Greg Doran says:
Jackie-
NFP is pretty effective, and is widely promoted by the church. Much of what we're being told are "necessary evils" are not really necessary. Those old enough remember the population scare and the promise that Artificial Birth Control would make our marriages better and our sex lives gloriously spontaneous. Forty years later we haven't taken delivery of either benefice but are terrified to give up the pill.
Yes, this is an agonizing choice and obviously men should not speak arrogantly about perils they will never face. But as moral truth is a real thing, a correct choice is possible and must be made. A woman can never experience the shame or frustration a man with impotence experiences. Nevertheless if she rightfully criticizes her husband if he commits moral evil in pursuit of a cure.
NFP is pretty effective, and is widely promoted by the church. Much of what we're being told are "necessary evils" are not really necessary. Those old enough remember the population scare and the promise that Artificial Birth Control would make our marriages better and our sex lives gloriously spontaneous. Forty years later we haven't taken delivery of either benefice but are terrified to give up the pill.
Yes, this is an agonizing choice and obviously men should not speak arrogantly about perils they will never face. But as moral truth is a real thing, a correct choice is possible and must be made. A woman can never experience the shame or frustration a man with impotence experiences. Nevertheless if she rightfully criticizes her husband if he commits moral evil in pursuit of a cure.
5.22.2010 | 1:27am
vitae says:
starsdancing:
Thank you for you comment. Just a brief response (it's late and it's been a long day!) -- I think no one disagrees with you (least of all me, who is in the medical profession and who is quite familiar with how difficult and complex these bioethical issues can be) that evidently the members of the medical team and of the ethics board (the "hospital" really does not have an opinion as such) believed that the termination of the pregnancy was morally licit -- because it happened. However, as you can see from all of the comments to these two articles, people of good will can and do disagree.
I also still wonder about your comments about "men of the Church" and that "men will never have to fact this particular choice, ever." What about the woman's husband and the father of her baby? Although you state that "none of us were there," it seems you know how the mother lay in her bed agonizing and how Sr. McBride was making this heart-wrenching decision. Well, what was the father doing all this time? Do you think that men and women are so totally split along gender lines that we cannot be involved with each other beyond the limits put by our anatomies? Although I am a woman, I have no children -- does that mean that I too cannot have my own beliefs about the morality of this decision, because I have never experienced pregnancy?
Anyways, I totally agree that this is a tremendously difficult situation -- all of us here agree with that. We don't disagree that God loves all of the people involved. We aren't saying this was an easy decision. But addressing these thorny theological and ethical issues, and perhaps arriving at a different conclusion than you have reached, does not mean that we lack Christian compassion and kindness.
Thank you for you comment. Just a brief response (it's late and it's been a long day!) -- I think no one disagrees with you (least of all me, who is in the medical profession and who is quite familiar with how difficult and complex these bioethical issues can be) that evidently the members of the medical team and of the ethics board (the "hospital" really does not have an opinion as such) believed that the termination of the pregnancy was morally licit -- because it happened. However, as you can see from all of the comments to these two articles, people of good will can and do disagree.
I also still wonder about your comments about "men of the Church" and that "men will never have to fact this particular choice, ever." What about the woman's husband and the father of her baby? Although you state that "none of us were there," it seems you know how the mother lay in her bed agonizing and how Sr. McBride was making this heart-wrenching decision. Well, what was the father doing all this time? Do you think that men and women are so totally split along gender lines that we cannot be involved with each other beyond the limits put by our anatomies? Although I am a woman, I have no children -- does that mean that I too cannot have my own beliefs about the morality of this decision, because I have never experienced pregnancy?
Anyways, I totally agree that this is a tremendously difficult situation -- all of us here agree with that. We don't disagree that God loves all of the people involved. We aren't saying this was an easy decision. But addressing these thorny theological and ethical issues, and perhaps arriving at a different conclusion than you have reached, does not mean that we lack Christian compassion and kindness.
5.22.2010 | 1:42am
Redfeather says:
Dear starsdancing,
We are gifted with the ability to apprehend truth, no matter our sex. Though a man will never have to spread his legs to abort his child, if he believes his child is made in the image and likeness of God, he would never do that anyway.
We are gifted with the ability to apprehend truth, no matter our sex. Though a man will never have to spread his legs to abort his child, if he believes his child is made in the image and likeness of God, he would never do that anyway.
5.22.2010 | 1:43am
B Nuckols, MD says:
Ms. Scalia,
You stressed the isolated phrase, “nearly certain.” Why do you not explore the meaning of the quote you gave: “If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it,” the hospital told The Arizona Republic. “We are convinced there was not.”
Pulmonary hypertension is not a single disease with a given course, it is a name given to syndromes resulting from several pathologies. http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/3/256.long In all of the syndromes, anesthesia carries a high death rate. The hormonal, vascular and volume changes that put stress on the heart can happen as early as 5 weeks’ gestation. http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=PDF&journalCode=ehj&resid=21/2/104 Furthermore, the condition of a mother with pulmonary hypertension and in crisis due to right heart failure at 11 weeks is not the same as that faced by mothers not yet in crisis whether before, during, or after birth.
Each of us has the right to self defense and to call on society – and medicine – to aid us in self defense. The NPR report http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_22_0_t&ct3=MAA4AEgWUABqAnVz&usg=AFQjCNEcUwkTEoWy6JBGJZHNkn4rdy6ebg&cid=8797539971481&ei=wkb3S8C3LJqO8QSRpdC6Aw&rt=STORY&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2Ftemplates%2Fstory%2Fstory.php%3FstoryId%3D126985072 notes that the mother was too sick to take to the operating room, much less transport to another hospital. It appeared that the mother’s life was in imminent danger, according to this and to the hospital’s statement.
You stressed the isolated phrase, “nearly certain.” Why do you not explore the meaning of the quote you gave: “If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it,” the hospital told The Arizona Republic. “We are convinced there was not.”
Pulmonary hypertension is not a single disease with a given course, it is a name given to syndromes resulting from several pathologies. http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/3/256.long In all of the syndromes, anesthesia carries a high death rate. The hormonal, vascular and volume changes that put stress on the heart can happen as early as 5 weeks’ gestation. http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=PDF&journalCode=ehj&resid=21/2/104 Furthermore, the condition of a mother with pulmonary hypertension and in crisis due to right heart failure at 11 weeks is not the same as that faced by mothers not yet in crisis whether before, during, or after birth.
Each of us has the right to self defense and to call on society – and medicine – to aid us in self defense. The NPR report http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_22_0_t&ct3=MAA4AEgWUABqAnVz&usg=AFQjCNEcUwkTEoWy6JBGJZHNkn4rdy6ebg&cid=8797539971481&ei=wkb3S8C3LJqO8QSRpdC6Aw&rt=STORY&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2Ftemplates%2Fstory%2Fstory.php%3FstoryId%3D126985072 notes that the mother was too sick to take to the operating room, much less transport to another hospital. It appeared that the mother’s life was in imminent danger, according to this and to the hospital’s statement.
5.22.2010 | 2:33am
Jesurgislac says:
JDD says: "The point is being misstated that the mother’s death is a sure-thing."
That's not a mis-statement. The hospital's reports, based on the doctors who actually examined the woman, were that the woman was too ill to be moved even into an operating theater, let alone another hospital: that her death was certain.
The response of Bishop Olmsted, Father Ehrich, and many other Catholics whose opinions I have read has been that if she can only be saved by performing an abortion, and she's in a Catholic hospital, and she can't be moved, the doctors will have to let her die.
"The Catholic position is that, in the case of the mother surely dying, her life may be saved although the procedure takes the life of the child in her womb."
Sister McBride, who took and weighed the medical evidence - that was her job - decided that the woman was surely dying and that therefore an abortion could be performed to let the woman live. For making this decision, she's been excommunicated: so now we know that the Catholic Church's doctrinal position, confirmed very publicly by Bishop Olmsted, is precisely - abortions can't be performed even when the woman will die unless the pregnancy is terminated, right now: Sister McBride should have insisted that the hospital let the woman die.
"No, it allows for a parent to use their free will to lay down his or her life, freely, for their children. "
But there was no free will involved for the woman. She agreed to have the abortion performed so that she could live. The Catholic Church, according to Bishop Olmsted, then mandated that the Church should require her to die, against her will, so that her four children would be orphaned.
Also, in this instance, this woman could not have decided to live long enough to bear her child: she was 11 weeks pregnant and dying. But in any case, apparently the Church is against the idea that a woman should "use her free will to lay down her life freely" - that would only be possible if the woman always had the choice of deciding NOT to lay down her life. If she's always to be forced to do so by the Church regardless of what her will is, she is NEVER "laying down her life freely" - the Church won't let her.
Pentimento: "It is important to clarify that Sr. McBride's bishop did not, in fact, excommunicate her. Canon 1398 decrees that anyone who has consciously participated in an abortion is automatically (latae sententiae) excommunicated. Bishop Olmstead merely stated that fact in regard to Sr. McBride's actions. The purpose of the excommunication, however, is to inspire penitence and reconciliation in the one who has committed the offense. "
I do understand the distinction (and there's an excellent article by Michael Liccone on this same site on the distinction in this case) - but what it adds up to is that Sister McBride can be received back into the Church, if and only if she sincerely repents saving the woman's life and promises in her conscience that she should have let her die.
If she remains sincerely content that she helped a woman live who would have died, then according to Bishop Olmsted, she must remain excommunicate. Sister McBride has been excommunicated because she decided (apparently) that since both deaths were inevitable otherwise, neither God nor the Catholic Church would object if she decided to save a mother's life.
Sister McBride has since discovered painfully, one may imagine, that the Catholic Church does object to her saving the woman's life: but I would guess she still believes that God who, in the Anchoress's words, "loved this woman into being for a purpose", would not object to her allowing the woman to fulfil God's purpose rather than simply letting her die.
That's not a mis-statement. The hospital's reports, based on the doctors who actually examined the woman, were that the woman was too ill to be moved even into an operating theater, let alone another hospital: that her death was certain.
The response of Bishop Olmsted, Father Ehrich, and many other Catholics whose opinions I have read has been that if she can only be saved by performing an abortion, and she's in a Catholic hospital, and she can't be moved, the doctors will have to let her die.
"The Catholic position is that, in the case of the mother surely dying, her life may be saved although the procedure takes the life of the child in her womb."
Sister McBride, who took and weighed the medical evidence - that was her job - decided that the woman was surely dying and that therefore an abortion could be performed to let the woman live. For making this decision, she's been excommunicated: so now we know that the Catholic Church's doctrinal position, confirmed very publicly by Bishop Olmsted, is precisely - abortions can't be performed even when the woman will die unless the pregnancy is terminated, right now: Sister McBride should have insisted that the hospital let the woman die.
"No, it allows for a parent to use their free will to lay down his or her life, freely, for their children. "
But there was no free will involved for the woman. She agreed to have the abortion performed so that she could live. The Catholic Church, according to Bishop Olmsted, then mandated that the Church should require her to die, against her will, so that her four children would be orphaned.
Also, in this instance, this woman could not have decided to live long enough to bear her child: she was 11 weeks pregnant and dying. But in any case, apparently the Church is against the idea that a woman should "use her free will to lay down her life freely" - that would only be possible if the woman always had the choice of deciding NOT to lay down her life. If she's always to be forced to do so by the Church regardless of what her will is, she is NEVER "laying down her life freely" - the Church won't let her.
Pentimento: "It is important to clarify that Sr. McBride's bishop did not, in fact, excommunicate her. Canon 1398 decrees that anyone who has consciously participated in an abortion is automatically (latae sententiae) excommunicated. Bishop Olmstead merely stated that fact in regard to Sr. McBride's actions. The purpose of the excommunication, however, is to inspire penitence and reconciliation in the one who has committed the offense. "
I do understand the distinction (and there's an excellent article by Michael Liccone on this same site on the distinction in this case) - but what it adds up to is that Sister McBride can be received back into the Church, if and only if she sincerely repents saving the woman's life and promises in her conscience that she should have let her die.
If she remains sincerely content that she helped a woman live who would have died, then according to Bishop Olmsted, she must remain excommunicate. Sister McBride has been excommunicated because she decided (apparently) that since both deaths were inevitable otherwise, neither God nor the Catholic Church would object if she decided to save a mother's life.
Sister McBride has since discovered painfully, one may imagine, that the Catholic Church does object to her saving the woman's life: but I would guess she still believes that God who, in the Anchoress's words, "loved this woman into being for a purpose", would not object to her allowing the woman to fulfil God's purpose rather than simply letting her die.
5.22.2010 | 8:09am
OhioTeach says:
As a woman I pray God I never find myself a patient in a Catholic hospital!
5.22.2010 | 9:54am
Carol says:
Ms Scalia, you ask us to consider a time travel world in which a woman who was supposed to die in God's plan instead elected abortion and lived, implying that would be a bad thing. Until Catholic hospitals are willing to ask that question in the case of every man facing a potentially deadly medical crisis the then to deny in every case medical intervention to that man, your heuristic has no value. Indeed, Catholics should not be in the medicine business at they do not want to contravene God's will.
5.22.2010 | 11:31am
BHG says:
Without trivializing this terrible situation, perhaps what one tells the children left behind--should that be the outcome, and that is not certain despite all the discussion (and I AM a physician)--that their mother loved their little brother/sister too much to kill him/her so that she could live. And that she loves each of the living children just that much too. And how about some sense in this discussion that maybe the Bishop prayed long over this, too. Perhaps the greater unasked question is what all of us in this discussion would do to support this family however the case turned out....The Catholic life is not just about debating great moral questions (and certainly not about casting aspersions on the men who have been chosen to shepherd us) but it is about what we do to help other pilgrims on the way. Sometimes that means sitting at a dying bedside and then helping a family pick up the pieces of life, often for a very long time. Sometimes that means suffering with them through a difficult choice, however it is made--for there will be hard consequences in a situation like this no matter the choice and no matter the outcome.
5.22.2010 | 12:05pm
Richard says:
It's a sad world and a sad, sometimes dismal, thread. In the end I expect Catholic hospitals and counselling services to be forced either to conform to the world in every particular, and thus betray their mission, or close and deprive those in need of their services. Jesus said that we cannot serve two masters. In this world we are not simply free to choose but forced to choose.
Bless you, Elizabeth. You have chosen the better part and it shall not be taken from you.
Richard
Bless you, Elizabeth. You have chosen the better part and it shall not be taken from you.
Richard
5.22.2010 | 12:32pm
jian says:
Forced by the pressures of life, people of breath. Have you ever thought to make our lives
easier ever?
=== You know, fashionable clothes can be adjusted people's taste? ====
Fashion clothes, fashion bags, different styles of clothing.
More styles and colors let you pick. Do not let the pressure overwhelm us.
Let us lead a life of ease. If you have other methods. Please share with us.
http://www.fashionclothe.com/index.asp
easier ever?
=== You know, fashionable clothes can be adjusted people's taste? ====
Fashion clothes, fashion bags, different styles of clothing.
More styles and colors let you pick. Do not let the pressure overwhelm us.
Let us lead a life of ease. If you have other methods. Please share with us.
http://www.fashionclothe.com/index.asp
5.22.2010 | 12:35pm
Ann says:
The hard truth is that a mother's life is not more valuable than her child and one child is not more valuable than another. The truth is that the only morally acceptable thing to do is try to save both but if you cannot then the moral obligation is to not kill one to save the other. The hard truth is that one or both may not live. That is not fair but how can you say that the baby is less valuable than the mother and with a straight face call it "pro life" or compassionate? Who is the next person to be deemed the "not valuable" life when a life and death situation arises? Where is the compassion for the voiceless and defensless person? They can't defend themselves so they lose just because they are defensless.
This case is a perfect example of how weak a pro life position is that makes exceptions for the life of the mother. There are too many ways of defining that exception and the baby always loses.
The hard truth is that sometimes it is "lose-lose". We cannot have it the way we want it or the it we think it "should be". We have to grow up and accept that hard truth.
Ms. Scalia presented a thoughtful essay on a different way we can view these "unfair" outcomes: sometimes that outcome is God's will. She didn't say it was, she didn't say it was easy or nice, she said what if and if it is HIS will shouldn't we find comfort in that. And no matter the outcome, it HIS is will since he allowed it. And no matter the outcome, if we accept it with faith, trust and humility then good will come our of it (see the life of St. Gianna Molla).
This case is a perfect example of how weak a pro life position is that makes exceptions for the life of the mother. There are too many ways of defining that exception and the baby always loses.
The hard truth is that sometimes it is "lose-lose". We cannot have it the way we want it or the it we think it "should be". We have to grow up and accept that hard truth.
Ms. Scalia presented a thoughtful essay on a different way we can view these "unfair" outcomes: sometimes that outcome is God's will. She didn't say it was, she didn't say it was easy or nice, she said what if and if it is HIS will shouldn't we find comfort in that. And no matter the outcome, it HIS is will since he allowed it. And no matter the outcome, if we accept it with faith, trust and humility then good will come our of it (see the life of St. Gianna Molla).
5.22.2010 | 2:02pm
Ziggle says:
What she hasn't explained is why it is morally acceptable to remove a fallopian tube that itself is not problematic but that contains an embryo. In a tubal ectopic pregnancy, the fallopian tube is not the cause of the mother's health crisis -- it is the embryo that is the problem. Remove the embryo, remove the problem. Even more true in the case of extra-uterine pregnancy, where there isn't even the fig leaf of a fallopian tube to hide behind.
Gianna Molla may have made the choice to avoid abortion and die. This patient did not. Very different scenario.
It makes me wonder whether ambulance services ought to be directed to never take pregnant emergency patients to a Catholic hospital since Bishops like the one in Phoenix will let an unwilling patient die rather than providing treatment -- at the mother's request -- that would likely save the mother's life.
Gianna Molla may have made the choice to avoid abortion and die. This patient did not. Very different scenario.
It makes me wonder whether ambulance services ought to be directed to never take pregnant emergency patients to a Catholic hospital since Bishops like the one in Phoenix will let an unwilling patient die rather than providing treatment -- at the mother's request -- that would likely save the mother's life.
5.22.2010 | 2:27pm
Richard says:
I hope I may add as a codicil to my comment that I believe that everyone in this conversation (and broader situation) is a decent person reasoning according to their best understanding of moral principles. How each stands with God, of course, I cannot know, but I suspect, well.
These are anguishing dilemmas that cannot be resolved without sorrow, however we choose. But I can offer one sublunar hope, and that not a contrived one. The day will come when medical technology, working under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit with the possibilities God has put in the world, will remove from us the burden of having to balance two precious lives against one another in deciding how to approach a life or death crisis. The day will come when medicine can save the mother and child in extremis for a full life beyond the hospital, and we will at last be spared at least this heart wrenching debate pitting earnest people against one another in grievous disagreement.
Then Death thou shalt die.
Best,
Richard
These are anguishing dilemmas that cannot be resolved without sorrow, however we choose. But I can offer one sublunar hope, and that not a contrived one. The day will come when medical technology, working under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit with the possibilities God has put in the world, will remove from us the burden of having to balance two precious lives against one another in deciding how to approach a life or death crisis. The day will come when medicine can save the mother and child in extremis for a full life beyond the hospital, and we will at last be spared at least this heart wrenching debate pitting earnest people against one another in grievous disagreement.
Then Death thou shalt die.
Best,
Richard
5.22.2010 | 2:38pm
starsdancing says:
vitae, the difference between this woman and her husband is that, while they're both dealing with a horrible personal situation, that situation doesn't involve his imminent death. No matter what choice was made, he was going to live.
That's a pretty big difference.
That's a pretty big difference.
5.22.2010 | 4:22pm
Jesurgislac says:
BHG says: " Without trivializing this terrible situation, perhaps what one tells the children left behind--should that be the outcome, and that is not certain despite all the discussion (and I AM a physician)--that their mother loved their little brother/sister too much to kill him/her so that she could live. "
You'd advocate LYING to the orphaned children? Telling them that their mother CHOSE to die, when the truth was she chose to live, and thanks to Sister McBride the hospital performed the abortion and she IS still alive?
But if Father Ehrich had been the one to decide, and he had decided that the hospital must let the woman die, why not tell the children left behind the truth - their mother wanted to live, but the Catholic Church mandated that she be left to die?
You're really saying that you would argue the orphaned children ought to be lied to about their mother's state of mind when she died?
Ann: "The truth is that the only morally acceptable thing to do is try to save both but if you cannot then the moral obligation is to not kill one to save the other. "
The moral obligation is then to let both die? Why is the woman to be regarded as not valuable and not worth saving? And how can you argue with a straight face that it's "pro life" or "compassionate" that a woman must be left to die because it's impossible to save both, therefore it's not worth saving just one - that if the baby can't be saved, the mother needn't be?
You'd advocate LYING to the orphaned children? Telling them that their mother CHOSE to die, when the truth was she chose to live, and thanks to Sister McBride the hospital performed the abortion and she IS still alive?
But if Father Ehrich had been the one to decide, and he had decided that the hospital must let the woman die, why not tell the children left behind the truth - their mother wanted to live, but the Catholic Church mandated that she be left to die?
You're really saying that you would argue the orphaned children ought to be lied to about their mother's state of mind when she died?
Ann: "The truth is that the only morally acceptable thing to do is try to save both but if you cannot then the moral obligation is to not kill one to save the other. "
The moral obligation is then to let both die? Why is the woman to be regarded as not valuable and not worth saving? And how can you argue with a straight face that it's "pro life" or "compassionate" that a woman must be left to die because it's impossible to save both, therefore it's not worth saving just one - that if the baby can't be saved, the mother needn't be?
5.22.2010 | 7:43pm
Mary Luca says:
With logic such as this, why have medical treatment? Or does "God's Will" only apply to women's uteri?
5.22.2010 | 11:02pm
Mary says:
Just wondering: Did Sr. McBride and the parents help plan for a burial for this unfortunate unborn child, or was the precious little one discarded with the medical waste?
5.22.2010 | 11:19pm
Deacon James Murphy says:
I read with affirmation the musing of Ms. Scalia that, "position of the church ( against abortion )is actually born from humility, from daring to believe that God knows what he is doing.” This is a foundational principal, and rightly so. Yet I also wonder why this same "humility" is not extended to homosexual men and women? Truly God knows what (who) she has created...and we know that God creates goodness.
5.22.2010 | 11:39pm
mike cliffson says:
Blimey!
What a trollicated Thread!
Story with a moral.
You mention ectopics, so do a number of comments.
There's been a trusim for 40-50 yrs believed inside the church and outside"The church accepts that ectopic pregancies are necessarily utterly doomed etc.
Not so
There's been a MSM clampdown on the following:
Despite social climate of death culture, consequent and cronic underfunding etc .,ONE madrid national heath hospital as of 15 yrs ago looks at all ectopics reffered to it often too late.
Against economic and all other odds, they manage 4% ectopics with healthy live no lasting complications MOTHER AND BABY.
In ALL cases they try, regardless, to the very last minute.
More funding, publicity, etc world wide and the 4% figure would increase.
But, god forbid, any my family ever get told "ectopic, sorry that's it, end of story"
God send I' ll be around to say
hey no, i want the madrid people to see,
and if they with a track record of busting a gut saving babies other doctors washed their hands of can't manage it, well, so be it.
Progressive people only seem to appreciate other sorts of progress.
Catholic thinking used to be in favour, more even than considering the baby equally valuable, worth the mother dying for.
Not as an outside imposition on women, rather a recognition of maternal Instict?feeling? natural law?
If A particular pregnacy complication is TODAY really only treatable by delivberately and directly killing the baby, and that's what you do, as routine, medicine in this area will never progress.
Because like all abortion you're taking the easy way out.
the lazyminded way out.
So in this case Im pontificating without knowing the medical facts?
True.
But I can't help feeling that if baby were at least considered equally valuable since 67 uk , roewadeusa, etcmore techniques might have been available to this mother and child by now. Ever noticed how God gave us brains and tends to reward research?
Even in this case, How much mre risk would there have been for this mother in featherbedding her in intensive care and giving her a really early ceasarian? I ve seen this sugeested by a doctor who wasn't treating her.
Was she even gien ,say ,the option" there's a tiny chance for baby, practically none for you, if you keep going."
Knowing modern medicine, I doubt it.
Ann above, amongst many others
Point with ectopics
There is usually some tiny chance, however bad the odds.
Medicine is just not yet that exact a science.
I've been prepared to die to save my family.
(Not sanctity, natural parental instinct.)
It worked.
They got to safety, I got bashed. (I'm not dead yet as it happens. But the possiblity was there.Presumably the same lot were the ones who who killed my friend and nextdoorneighbour and dumped his body)
Suppose this had been , say, the warsaw ghetto.
Statstically the odds on anything similar being a totally useless sacrifice were far higher than ANYTHING medical, AND the jews in the Ghetto eventually knew it.
Some chose to stay together as families.
My instinct would be to try putting myself in the firing line fisrt, tho it bought them but seconds. Im a weak sinner, God send Im never put to this test.
I wouldn't highmindedly condemn a sick, frightened , undernourished shccked and ill advised parent who used their child as a shield to stop bullets reaching them.
I' d rather wonder about anyone who approved or defended such conduct in itself.
I'd wonder even more if that someone was plural, professional, aided and abetted, and had "catholic" hung over the front door.
What a trollicated Thread!
Story with a moral.
You mention ectopics, so do a number of comments.
There's been a trusim for 40-50 yrs believed inside the church and outside"The church accepts that ectopic pregancies are necessarily utterly doomed etc.
Not so
There's been a MSM clampdown on the following:
Despite social climate of death culture, consequent and cronic underfunding etc .,ONE madrid national heath hospital as of 15 yrs ago looks at all ectopics reffered to it often too late.
Against economic and all other odds, they manage 4% ectopics with healthy live no lasting complications MOTHER AND BABY.
In ALL cases they try, regardless, to the very last minute.
More funding, publicity, etc world wide and the 4% figure would increase.
But, god forbid, any my family ever get told "ectopic, sorry that's it, end of story"
God send I' ll be around to say
hey no, i want the madrid people to see,
and if they with a track record of busting a gut saving babies other doctors washed their hands of can't manage it, well, so be it.
Progressive people only seem to appreciate other sorts of progress.
Catholic thinking used to be in favour, more even than considering the baby equally valuable, worth the mother dying for.
Not as an outside imposition on women, rather a recognition of maternal Instict?feeling? natural law?
If A particular pregnacy complication is TODAY really only treatable by delivberately and directly killing the baby, and that's what you do, as routine, medicine in this area will never progress.
Because like all abortion you're taking the easy way out.
the lazyminded way out.
So in this case Im pontificating without knowing the medical facts?
True.
But I can't help feeling that if baby were at least considered equally valuable since 67 uk , roewadeusa, etcmore techniques might have been available to this mother and child by now. Ever noticed how God gave us brains and tends to reward research?
Even in this case, How much mre risk would there have been for this mother in featherbedding her in intensive care and giving her a really early ceasarian? I ve seen this sugeested by a doctor who wasn't treating her.
Was she even gien ,say ,the option" there's a tiny chance for baby, practically none for you, if you keep going."
Knowing modern medicine, I doubt it.
Ann above, amongst many others
Point with ectopics
There is usually some tiny chance, however bad the odds.
Medicine is just not yet that exact a science.
I've been prepared to die to save my family.
(Not sanctity, natural parental instinct.)
It worked.
They got to safety, I got bashed. (I'm not dead yet as it happens. But the possiblity was there.Presumably the same lot were the ones who who killed my friend and nextdoorneighbour and dumped his body)
Suppose this had been , say, the warsaw ghetto.
Statstically the odds on anything similar being a totally useless sacrifice were far higher than ANYTHING medical, AND the jews in the Ghetto eventually knew it.
Some chose to stay together as families.
My instinct would be to try putting myself in the firing line fisrt, tho it bought them but seconds. Im a weak sinner, God send Im never put to this test.
I wouldn't highmindedly condemn a sick, frightened , undernourished shccked and ill advised parent who used their child as a shield to stop bullets reaching them.
I' d rather wonder about anyone who approved or defended such conduct in itself.
I'd wonder even more if that someone was plural, professional, aided and abetted, and had "catholic" hung over the front door.
5.23.2010 | 1:29am
Gordon says:
Karen,
Please continue to speak the truth. Your charism is that. Peace and God Bless, and may Christ be the center of your life.
Please continue to speak the truth. Your charism is that. Peace and God Bless, and may Christ be the center of your life.
5.23.2010 | 9:10am
Katie says:
Just a question if someone out there is a medic. Is it possible to implant ectopic embryos in the womb?
5.23.2010 | 2:58pm
clyde says:
There are thousands of non catholic hospitals, why couldn't or didn't she go to one of them.It is still a free country in spite of obama and she was not being held as a prisoner.Could it be she was part of plan to try to discredit the church?
5.23.2010 | 4:25pm
Karen says:
This case is a perfect example of how weak a pro life position is that makes exceptions for the life of the mother. There are too many ways of defining that exception and the baby always loses.
Before 24 weeks gestation, it is impossible under any circumstances for a baby to survive outside its mother's womb. By the logic demonstrated here, and by most of the comments on this thread, a woman whose is dying from a pregnancy less advanced than 24 weeks should just die since it's impossible to save both of them. I cannot accept the idea that the only good woman is a dead woman.*
*The reference is to Phillip Sheridan's opinion of First Nations people. The Catholic hierarchy applies this to all women.
Before 24 weeks gestation, it is impossible under any circumstances for a baby to survive outside its mother's womb. By the logic demonstrated here, and by most of the comments on this thread, a woman whose is dying from a pregnancy less advanced than 24 weeks should just die since it's impossible to save both of them. I cannot accept the idea that the only good woman is a dead woman.*
*The reference is to Phillip Sheridan's opinion of First Nations people. The Catholic hierarchy applies this to all women.
5.23.2010 | 6:56pm
robert gambera says:
This article nailed the truth! After reading it, I picked up where I left off and began reading chapter 28 of C.S. Lewis, "The Screwtape Letters". If anyone else would to question the moral truths of this article, just read those 3 short pages of chapter 28, before you strike.
5.23.2010 | 7:03pm
EMK says:
"I read with affirmation the musing of Ms. Scalia that, "position of the church ( against abortion )is actually born from humility, from daring to believe that God knows what he is doing.” This is a foundational principal, and rightly so. Yet I also wonder why this same "humility" is not extended to homosexual men and women? Truly God knows what (who) she has created...and we know that God creates goodness."
That's one way to hijack a thread into another subject. It suggests you're fixated on the subject too. But one answer might be that God knows what he is doing when he creates gay men and women; how willing are they to try to discern what that is, or have they "decided" that God could not be calling them to lives of celibacy and service, in a million ways, including, I believe, the priesthood.
Scripture talks nowhere of God deliberately "creating" a third way, but Jesus is very clear that "he made them male and female." Jesus also is very generous to the "eunuchs," though and when he talks about them in Matthew 19, it seems clear that he accepts the reality of eunuchs, and accords them full respect. But he is also clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. Why such a problem with that?
That's one way to hijack a thread into another subject. It suggests you're fixated on the subject too. But one answer might be that God knows what he is doing when he creates gay men and women; how willing are they to try to discern what that is, or have they "decided" that God could not be calling them to lives of celibacy and service, in a million ways, including, I believe, the priesthood.
Scripture talks nowhere of God deliberately "creating" a third way, but Jesus is very clear that "he made them male and female." Jesus also is very generous to the "eunuchs," though and when he talks about them in Matthew 19, it seems clear that he accepts the reality of eunuchs, and accords them full respect. But he is also clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. Why such a problem with that?
5.24.2010 | 12:29am
Gentile says:
This decision, however, doesn't make sense.
The auther is a hypocritical moralists.
Sr. McBride is a member of the Catholic hospital’s ethics committee.
Find out a 100% win-win clinical solution is not her job. She made the decision based on the infrrmation from doctors who knows the statisics of this situation.
If the medical information shows the mother in the risk of "certain die", she should make the choice of saving mother and she has the duty to make the new policy based on this clinical evidence(s) to save more life.
A much reasonable decision is "excommunicate the superintendent or the director of obstetrics department" (if smeone really need to be excommunicated) because they did not introduce the good medical solution in their profession (if there is one).
Sr. McBride is right, she make a good decision that can save "more life" in long term based on the clinical infromation she had.
God might try to teach Catholic the lession of good principles based on the fact of statistics which is really "Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And [which] entered not into the heart of man." in this case.
The auther is a hypocritical moralists.
Sr. McBride is a member of the Catholic hospital’s ethics committee.
Find out a 100% win-win clinical solution is not her job. She made the decision based on the infrrmation from doctors who knows the statisics of this situation.
If the medical information shows the mother in the risk of "certain die", she should make the choice of saving mother and she has the duty to make the new policy based on this clinical evidence(s) to save more life.
A much reasonable decision is "excommunicate the superintendent or the director of obstetrics department" (if smeone really need to be excommunicated) because they did not introduce the good medical solution in their profession (if there is one).
Sr. McBride is right, she make a good decision that can save "more life" in long term based on the clinical infromation she had.
God might try to teach Catholic the lession of good principles based on the fact of statistics which is really "Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And [which] entered not into the heart of man." in this case.
5.24.2010 | 8:31am
Ann says:
"The moral obligation is then to let both die? Why is the woman to be regarded as not valuable and not worth saving? And how can you argue with a straight face that it's "pro life" or "compassionate" that a woman must be left to die because it's impossible to save both, therefore it's not worth saving just one - that if the baby can't be saved, the mother needn't be? "
I never said that the mother was not valuable and not worth saving. They both are worth saving. The conundrum is do we have the right to choose on over the other? The Church is telling us that no we do not have that right.
Life of the mother exceptions are too widely defined and the baby always loses.
If you choose one over the other then you cannot claim to be pro life and once you choose one over the other you are on the slippery slope. Who gets to judge who lives and dies? Who gets to judge the value of one human life over the other? When does the judging stop?
With a straight face I can say this and with a straight face I can say that I am compassionate that you cannot judge me otherwise based on this thread. Compassion does not require an emotional "Oh how can you let the mother die? Oh those poor children. How can you make them an orphan?" Choosing one over the other by direct abortion is what is called "misplaced compassion?"
I can with a straoght face say that I believe those decisions, when life begins and ends, are God's decisions. I am not saying that he values on life over the other. How he decides is beyond me but I do know that he does what is best for us in terms of our eternal salvation. We have to think in terms that are much bigger than "here and now" and "what about those left behind". We are talking eternal salvation. Only HE knows the answers to that. The BIG picture is what Ms. Scalia was getting at, how does this all fit into HIS plan for our eternal salvation? Our compassion is most properly directed toward that which leads to eternal salvation. If you don't believe that then Ms. Scalia's essay makes no sense and never will.
I never said that the mother was not valuable and not worth saving. They both are worth saving. The conundrum is do we have the right to choose on over the other? The Church is telling us that no we do not have that right.
Life of the mother exceptions are too widely defined and the baby always loses.
If you choose one over the other then you cannot claim to be pro life and once you choose one over the other you are on the slippery slope. Who gets to judge who lives and dies? Who gets to judge the value of one human life over the other? When does the judging stop?
With a straight face I can say this and with a straight face I can say that I am compassionate that you cannot judge me otherwise based on this thread. Compassion does not require an emotional "Oh how can you let the mother die? Oh those poor children. How can you make them an orphan?" Choosing one over the other by direct abortion is what is called "misplaced compassion?"
I can with a straoght face say that I believe those decisions, when life begins and ends, are God's decisions. I am not saying that he values on life over the other. How he decides is beyond me but I do know that he does what is best for us in terms of our eternal salvation. We have to think in terms that are much bigger than "here and now" and "what about those left behind". We are talking eternal salvation. Only HE knows the answers to that. The BIG picture is what Ms. Scalia was getting at, how does this all fit into HIS plan for our eternal salvation? Our compassion is most properly directed toward that which leads to eternal salvation. If you don't believe that then Ms. Scalia's essay makes no sense and never will.
5.24.2010 | 6:24pm
Jesurgislac says:
I never said that the mother was not valuable and not worth saving. They both are worth saving. The conundrum is do we have the right to choose on over the other? The Church is telling us that no we do not have that right.
Sorry, I misunderstood: you're saying that not you but the Church say the mother was not valuable and not worth saving. Fair enough. Gerard Nadal's posts on this topic at his blog have made it clear to me that the Catholic Church mandated the death of the mother.
Who gets to judge who lives and dies? Who gets to judge the value of one human life over the other? When does the judging stop?
Well, apparently the Catholic Church believes that it gets to judge who lives and who dies, and that the woman's life is of no value if the fetus's life can't be saved. This judging may or may not ever stop, but we can prevent that judgement from causing more deaths by ensuring the Catholic Church is never allowed authority over any hospital providing OB/GYN or emergency services, ever again.
With a straight face I can say this and with a straight face I can say that I am compassionate that you cannot judge me otherwise based on this thread.
I believe you. I believe that if you had been in Sister McBride's position, you would have done what she did - the compassionate, pro-life decision, to let th woman live. Obviously the Catholic Church can't tolerate a judgement that a pregnant woman's life is of equal value to the fetus she carries, that even if the fetus can't be saved the woman can still be allowed to live, but I believe you if you tell me that the Church's will that the woman should have died is not your own.
Sorry, I misunderstood: you're saying that not you but the Church say the mother was not valuable and not worth saving. Fair enough. Gerard Nadal's posts on this topic at his blog have made it clear to me that the Catholic Church mandated the death of the mother.
Who gets to judge who lives and dies? Who gets to judge the value of one human life over the other? When does the judging stop?
Well, apparently the Catholic Church believes that it gets to judge who lives and who dies, and that the woman's life is of no value if the fetus's life can't be saved. This judging may or may not ever stop, but we can prevent that judgement from causing more deaths by ensuring the Catholic Church is never allowed authority over any hospital providing OB/GYN or emergency services, ever again.
With a straight face I can say this and with a straight face I can say that I am compassionate that you cannot judge me otherwise based on this thread.
I believe you. I believe that if you had been in Sister McBride's position, you would have done what she did - the compassionate, pro-life decision, to let th woman live. Obviously the Catholic Church can't tolerate a judgement that a pregnant woman's life is of equal value to the fetus she carries, that even if the fetus can't be saved the woman can still be allowed to live, but I believe you if you tell me that the Church's will that the woman should have died is not your own.
5.24.2010 | 8:28pm
Robert Zeh says:
It is one thing to trust in God. It is quiet another to ask or force someone else to do so.
5.25.2010 | 9:27am
Ann says:
Jesurgislac:
" you're saying that not you but the Church say the mother was not valuable and not worth savin"
that is not what I said and not what the Church says.
"but we can prevent that judgement from causing more deaths"
Except the deaths of the babies....some have put themselves in the position of judging and the baby always loses. That is why a "pro life" postion with exceptions for the life of the mother is not "pro life" at all. The baby always loses. And you can't tell me that "life of the mother" exceptions are all truly life or death of the mother and you can't tell me that you or anyone else knows that in this case either.
" that even if the fetus can't be saved " Again, we do not know this for a fact but it doesn't change the fact that you are judging the mother's life as more vauable than the baby and you have no right to do this. This is the slippery slope my friend. The judging never stops on this slope and the weak and defensless always lose. The weak, sick, aged and infirm are already considered a "burden" and are rejected as having no value. So does "pro life" mean ALL lifeor only the healthy life, the life with a quality that is subjuctively judged. That is not pro, that is conditional and once the conditional changes so does the worth of that life.
Please clarify how an approach that sacrifices the weaker more defensless life (or the sick, aged or infirm) is pro life. Please explain how judging one life to be more valuable is not eugenics,
Also, please explain how you know that the baby's life couldn't be saved. I am not an expert, but my understanding is that 11 weeks is early enough that the mother was not in mortal danger. Again, this doesn't change the wrong that was done but I would life someone to fill in the holes of the pro abortion argument, if you can.
Also, if you are pro life, why do you keep referring to the baby as a fetus? Do you believe that this pre born baby is a human life, a human being, person? Fetus is a term used by pro abortion folks to deny human dignity to the pre born. Or did I misunderstand your use of pro life?
Thanks.
" you're saying that not you but the Church say the mother was not valuable and not worth savin"
that is not what I said and not what the Church says.
"but we can prevent that judgement from causing more deaths"
Except the deaths of the babies....some have put themselves in the position of judging and the baby always loses. That is why a "pro life" postion with exceptions for the life of the mother is not "pro life" at all. The baby always loses. And you can't tell me that "life of the mother" exceptions are all truly life or death of the mother and you can't tell me that you or anyone else knows that in this case either.
" that even if the fetus can't be saved " Again, we do not know this for a fact but it doesn't change the fact that you are judging the mother's life as more vauable than the baby and you have no right to do this. This is the slippery slope my friend. The judging never stops on this slope and the weak and defensless always lose. The weak, sick, aged and infirm are already considered a "burden" and are rejected as having no value. So does "pro life" mean ALL lifeor only the healthy life, the life with a quality that is subjuctively judged. That is not pro, that is conditional and once the conditional changes so does the worth of that life.
Please clarify how an approach that sacrifices the weaker more defensless life (or the sick, aged or infirm) is pro life. Please explain how judging one life to be more valuable is not eugenics,
Also, please explain how you know that the baby's life couldn't be saved. I am not an expert, but my understanding is that 11 weeks is early enough that the mother was not in mortal danger. Again, this doesn't change the wrong that was done but I would life someone to fill in the holes of the pro abortion argument, if you can.
Also, if you are pro life, why do you keep referring to the baby as a fetus? Do you believe that this pre born baby is a human life, a human being, person? Fetus is a term used by pro abortion folks to deny human dignity to the pre born. Or did I misunderstand your use of pro life?
Thanks.
5.25.2010 | 12:39pm
TerryC says:
It is not ethically permissible to do anything necessary to save a person's life. It is conceivable to imagine a world where organs could be taken against the will of the person because they are not "important" enough or not rich enough or not powerful enough. In that case, if a Catholic hospital did not allow such actions should they be criticized for allowing the patient to die? Neither is it ethically permissible for me to grab an organ from a passerby just because it will save my life.
God is all powerful, but he chooses to allow free will. People have the ability to make choices that are against the will of God, to be "a stiff necked people."
It is amazing to me that someone could try to phase this situation as an example of the Church's hostility to women. There is at least a 50% chance that this baby was female, yet in some people's minds this little girl, who would one day be a woman, is not a real person. Who then, is the one who is anti-woman?
I have read in more than one source, from medical professionals, that there is never a need in cases like this to abort the baby. It is always possible to wait until the child is fully formed enough to live outside the mother and then place him/her on life support, while avoiding the dangerous later months of the pregnancy. The fact that there is a process with a very high (possibly 100%) treatment rate makes this even less necessary.
God is all powerful, but he chooses to allow free will. People have the ability to make choices that are against the will of God, to be "a stiff necked people."
It is amazing to me that someone could try to phase this situation as an example of the Church's hostility to women. There is at least a 50% chance that this baby was female, yet in some people's minds this little girl, who would one day be a woman, is not a real person. Who then, is the one who is anti-woman?
I have read in more than one source, from medical professionals, that there is never a need in cases like this to abort the baby. It is always possible to wait until the child is fully formed enough to live outside the mother and then place him/her on life support, while avoiding the dangerous later months of the pregnancy. The fact that there is a process with a very high (possibly 100%) treatment rate makes this even less necessary.
5.25.2010 | 6:06pm
David Morton says:
This was certainly an incredibly tough choice to make. And ladies please don't come with this BS saying its easy for the men. Do you really think the husband wanted to lose his wife? And his child? I think there's been quite a lot of self-righteousness from both sides, and attacking the Church for standing for what it believes and teaches really doesn't help at all. I certainly dont believe this is a black and white issue and I also don't believe the mother and father will be condemned for what they did. I do think a grace-filled opportunity was lost to the mother and her husband. However, God understands our weaknesses. The bishop also has been courageous, do you really think he didnt know what kind of response would emmanate from his stand. I also think we shouldn't be so hard on Sr McBride, but her position as a church representative places her in a different position from the parents. I would just like those who are so vehemently in favour of aborting the child to ask themselves if they would be willing to chop that little child up into little pieces and remove it from its mother's womb. If you are willing to do that then sure have your say; but really I think you should take a chill pill; its a tough decision from whichever side of the fence you sit...
5.25.2010 | 7:21pm
Jesurgislac says:
Terry asks "It is conceivable to imagine a world where organs could be taken against the will of the person because they are not "important" enough or not rich enough or not powerful enough. In that case, if a Catholic hospital did not allow such actions should they be criticized for allowing the patient to die? "
But they do allow such actions, Terry, all the time. There are countries in the world where it is illegal for a person who is not "important" enough to deny those in power the use of her organs. That is, any country with pro-life laws where women are not allowed to decide to terminate a pregnancy at will: any Catholic hospital which turns away women who need elective abortions, which refuses to prescribe emergency contraception to women who have been raped and fear pregnancy, is creating a world where women's organs can be used against their will because women are not "important" enough, not powerful enough in the Church: a rich woman can of course escape such use, because a wealthy woman can always go somewhere else to terminate a pregnancy.
In fact, Sister McBride was excommunicated because she agreed with the doctors that it would be wrong to allow this poor woman's organs to be taken fron her against her will. And the Catholic hospital which refused to allow her to die even though the Church declared her body was to be used at the Church's will, not her own, to die with the fetus - is being criticized by Catholics for exactly that reason.
"Neither is it ethically permissible for me to grab an organ from a passerby just because it will save my life."
I agree. Hence my support for pro-choice abortion. It is not ethically permissable for the fetus to "grab an organ" from the pregnant woman just because it will save the fetus's life. No one has the right to make use of the organs of another person's body against their will, not even if it will save their life. Yet the Catholic Church mandates that a fetus DOES have that right - and people here defend the right because "the fetus is a real person": as if the pregnant woman is not a real person.
But we're not discussing the ethical justification for elective abortion here, though you've just outlined it in a few words.
We're discussing the Church's hostility to women, in that the Church has, as you outlined it, declared that all women are not "important" enough, not powerful enough, to be allowed the right to control even their bodily organs, not even to save their own lives.
But they do allow such actions, Terry, all the time. There are countries in the world where it is illegal for a person who is not "important" enough to deny those in power the use of her organs. That is, any country with pro-life laws where women are not allowed to decide to terminate a pregnancy at will: any Catholic hospital which turns away women who need elective abortions, which refuses to prescribe emergency contraception to women who have been raped and fear pregnancy, is creating a world where women's organs can be used against their will because women are not "important" enough, not powerful enough in the Church: a rich woman can of course escape such use, because a wealthy woman can always go somewhere else to terminate a pregnancy.
In fact, Sister McBride was excommunicated because she agreed with the doctors that it would be wrong to allow this poor woman's organs to be taken fron her against her will. And the Catholic hospital which refused to allow her to die even though the Church declared her body was to be used at the Church's will, not her own, to die with the fetus - is being criticized by Catholics for exactly that reason.
"Neither is it ethically permissible for me to grab an organ from a passerby just because it will save my life."
I agree. Hence my support for pro-choice abortion. It is not ethically permissable for the fetus to "grab an organ" from the pregnant woman just because it will save the fetus's life. No one has the right to make use of the organs of another person's body against their will, not even if it will save their life. Yet the Catholic Church mandates that a fetus DOES have that right - and people here defend the right because "the fetus is a real person": as if the pregnant woman is not a real person.
But we're not discussing the ethical justification for elective abortion here, though you've just outlined it in a few words.
We're discussing the Church's hostility to women, in that the Church has, as you outlined it, declared that all women are not "important" enough, not powerful enough, to be allowed the right to control even their bodily organs, not even to save their own lives.
5.26.2010 | 5:27am
Jesurgislac says:
Ann: "that is not what I said and not what the Church says. "
Fine, so Bishop Olmsted was wrong and Sister McBride was right - the woman was worth saving and the Sister shouldn't have been excommunicated for saying so.
But lots of Catholics, in this very thread, have been saying just the opposite - the Bishop was right, the woman should have been left to die.
"Except the deaths of the babies....some have put themselves in the position of judging and the baby always loses. That is why a "pro life" postion with exceptions for the life of the mother is not "pro life" at all. The baby always loses."
Well, yes: the fetus / the unborn baby dies when the mother dies. Pro-lifers who take the position that the fetus should die in the dead uterus rather than allowing an abortion to save the mother's life are actively arguing for two deaths rather than one: are rather explicitly arguing that if the fetus's life can't be saved, they don't care if the woman dies.
"Also, please explain how you know that the baby's life couldn't be saved."
Sure. The woman was dying. The fetus (the unborn baby, if you prefer) was just 11 weeks along. Whether you opt (as the hospital did) for the swift death of removing the fetus from the uterus so that it dies instantly, or (as Bishop Olmsted declared the Church requires) for the slow death inside the dead woman's womb, there was no way an 11-weeks fetus could have been saved. That's how I know. The only choice was whether to kill the fetus by letting the woman die, or to kill the fetus by performing an abortion and saving the woman's life.
Those who value the woman's life equally with the fetus's life will be glad that at least the woman's life was saved: those who think the woman was worthless if she wasn't able to carry the fetus to term, will be outraged that the abortion was performed so that the woman lived.
Fine, so Bishop Olmsted was wrong and Sister McBride was right - the woman was worth saving and the Sister shouldn't have been excommunicated for saying so.
But lots of Catholics, in this very thread, have been saying just the opposite - the Bishop was right, the woman should have been left to die.
"Except the deaths of the babies....some have put themselves in the position of judging and the baby always loses. That is why a "pro life" postion with exceptions for the life of the mother is not "pro life" at all. The baby always loses."
Well, yes: the fetus / the unborn baby dies when the mother dies. Pro-lifers who take the position that the fetus should die in the dead uterus rather than allowing an abortion to save the mother's life are actively arguing for two deaths rather than one: are rather explicitly arguing that if the fetus's life can't be saved, they don't care if the woman dies.
"Also, please explain how you know that the baby's life couldn't be saved."
Sure. The woman was dying. The fetus (the unborn baby, if you prefer) was just 11 weeks along. Whether you opt (as the hospital did) for the swift death of removing the fetus from the uterus so that it dies instantly, or (as Bishop Olmsted declared the Church requires) for the slow death inside the dead woman's womb, there was no way an 11-weeks fetus could have been saved. That's how I know. The only choice was whether to kill the fetus by letting the woman die, or to kill the fetus by performing an abortion and saving the woman's life.
Those who value the woman's life equally with the fetus's life will be glad that at least the woman's life was saved: those who think the woman was worthless if she wasn't able to carry the fetus to term, will be outraged that the abortion was performed so that the woman lived.
5.26.2010 | 10:09am
Ann says:
Jesurgislac:
Do you have a source for your postion that the mother was dying? Her exact condition seems to be a source of hypotheses.
And really, you are not being fair or intellectually honest when you tell me what I think and I tell you that that is not what I think. I do not think the mother is worthless.
You know, this is one of those situations in life that just stink. The morally correct thing to do may not end as we hope (that both live). That is just the way life is sometimes. I am not being cold or uncaring but we cannot have it that way we want it sometimes.
I see at least two problems with your arguments:
1. no one has anyway of knowing the outcome if a different course of action had been taken. No one not even the docs.
2. You don't seem to know the medical condition of the mother anymore than I do so you can't use "she was going to die" as a reason for the abortion. From what I have read here and other places it is all hypotheses.
3. Faith demands that we do the morally correct thing and at the same time put it in God's hands. Catholics are also called to be obedient to the teachings of the Church and the magisterium whether you agree with them or not. If we do not have faith then your arguments lend themselves to a relativistic moralism. Which pretty much ends the discussion.
Thanks.
Do you have a source for your postion that the mother was dying? Her exact condition seems to be a source of hypotheses.
And really, you are not being fair or intellectually honest when you tell me what I think and I tell you that that is not what I think. I do not think the mother is worthless.
You know, this is one of those situations in life that just stink. The morally correct thing to do may not end as we hope (that both live). That is just the way life is sometimes. I am not being cold or uncaring but we cannot have it that way we want it sometimes.
I see at least two problems with your arguments:
1. no one has anyway of knowing the outcome if a different course of action had been taken. No one not even the docs.
2. You don't seem to know the medical condition of the mother anymore than I do so you can't use "she was going to die" as a reason for the abortion. From what I have read here and other places it is all hypotheses.
3. Faith demands that we do the morally correct thing and at the same time put it in God's hands. Catholics are also called to be obedient to the teachings of the Church and the magisterium whether you agree with them or not. If we do not have faith then your arguments lend themselves to a relativistic moralism. Which pretty much ends the discussion.
Thanks.
5.26.2010 | 10:47am
Jesurgislac says:
Ann: "Do you have a source for your postion that the mother was dying?"
Yes. The hospital. The doctors who examined her. The nun, Sister McBride, who agreed to the abortion believing that under Directive 47, the Catholic Church permits abortion to save the woman's life. No one who was actually directly concerned with the woman says anything else - she was dying. If not for the abortion, she *would* have died. That was why a Catholic hospital consented to perform the abortion: they believed the Church allowed them to save her life.
"I do not think the mother is worthless. "
Certainly if you're under the vague impression she might have lived if the abortion hadn't been performed, I can believe you would argue against the abortion. But, all the medical testimony says different (aside from bloviatings from doctors who weren't there, didn't see her records, and therefore cannot possibly *know* if there was any other way to save her). Who are you going to believe - the doctors who treated her and the nun who took the responsibility for saving her life, or people who weren't there and who haven't seen the medical records?
"You know, this is one of those situations in life that just stink."
Agreed! The woman herself had to choose between consenting to an abortion or death. If she died she couldn't save her fetus, and if she died she was disregarding her four other children left motherless, her partner, her family - however much she wanted *this* baby, she had to either choose life or choose death - and death for her meant the end of the pregnancy as surely as abortion.
". The morally correct thing to do may not end as we hope (that both live)."
How could it be morally correct for the mother of four to choose to commit suicide? How could it be morally correct for doctors to just let a woman who wanted to live just to DIE? Choosing death for two is NOT the morally correct choice for either the woman or for doctors. And it's not your choice or the Bishop's (and I don't believe it should have been Sister McBride's either). As I said far upthread: If God loved that woman into being for a purpose, how dare anyone assume that woman's purpose was to die of her fifth pregnancy in a hospital that could have saved her life?
One: "no one has anyway of knowing the outcome if a different course of action had been taken. No one not even the docs. "
Nonsense. Sorry, but it is. If you push a breadknife into a man's chest, he may or may not die - you have no way of knowing the outcome. But you cannot defend that action by saying you HOPED he would live - if you HOPED he would live, you shouldn't have stabbed him with the breadknife! You have no way of knowing if the woman would somehow have recovered even though the doctors were almost certain she was going to die - so certain that, even though it was a Catholic hospital, they wanted to perform an abortion to save her life. You have no business telling doctors "Don't try to save her life: just hope it happens."
Two: "You don't seem to know the medical condition of the mother anymore than I do"
Actually, it's quite evident that I know a bit more than you do - I read the original news reports, whereas you seem to have gone with the hope reports. That's how I know she was dying.
Three: "Faith demands that we do the morally correct thing and at the same time put it in God's hands. "
Fine: stay away from hospitals, then. Don't bother with medical care. Just "put it in God's hands" and hope you don't die.
"Catholics are also called to be obedient to the teachings of the Church and the magisterium whether you agree with them or not."
I have been convinced of that over the past few days, actually, that Catholics are required by the Church to let women die in pregnancy rather than save them. That the belief I held that the Church allowed abortion to save a woman's life is erroneous; that the Church discards women who will die in pregnancy as callously as a worn-out machine. I've been convinced. I now believe that no hospital, anywhere, should permit any Catholic to work there unless the Catholic affirms that they will never allow the mandate of the Church for death to override the hospital's ethical obligation to provide healthcare.
Yes. The hospital. The doctors who examined her. The nun, Sister McBride, who agreed to the abortion believing that under Directive 47, the Catholic Church permits abortion to save the woman's life. No one who was actually directly concerned with the woman says anything else - she was dying. If not for the abortion, she *would* have died. That was why a Catholic hospital consented to perform the abortion: they believed the Church allowed them to save her life.
"I do not think the mother is worthless. "
Certainly if you're under the vague impression she might have lived if the abortion hadn't been performed, I can believe you would argue against the abortion. But, all the medical testimony says different (aside from bloviatings from doctors who weren't there, didn't see her records, and therefore cannot possibly *know* if there was any other way to save her). Who are you going to believe - the doctors who treated her and the nun who took the responsibility for saving her life, or people who weren't there and who haven't seen the medical records?
"You know, this is one of those situations in life that just stink."
Agreed! The woman herself had to choose between consenting to an abortion or death. If she died she couldn't save her fetus, and if she died she was disregarding her four other children left motherless, her partner, her family - however much she wanted *this* baby, she had to either choose life or choose death - and death for her meant the end of the pregnancy as surely as abortion.
". The morally correct thing to do may not end as we hope (that both live)."
How could it be morally correct for the mother of four to choose to commit suicide? How could it be morally correct for doctors to just let a woman who wanted to live just to DIE? Choosing death for two is NOT the morally correct choice for either the woman or for doctors. And it's not your choice or the Bishop's (and I don't believe it should have been Sister McBride's either). As I said far upthread: If God loved that woman into being for a purpose, how dare anyone assume that woman's purpose was to die of her fifth pregnancy in a hospital that could have saved her life?
One: "no one has anyway of knowing the outcome if a different course of action had been taken. No one not even the docs. "
Nonsense. Sorry, but it is. If you push a breadknife into a man's chest, he may or may not die - you have no way of knowing the outcome. But you cannot defend that action by saying you HOPED he would live - if you HOPED he would live, you shouldn't have stabbed him with the breadknife! You have no way of knowing if the woman would somehow have recovered even though the doctors were almost certain she was going to die - so certain that, even though it was a Catholic hospital, they wanted to perform an abortion to save her life. You have no business telling doctors "Don't try to save her life: just hope it happens."
Two: "You don't seem to know the medical condition of the mother anymore than I do"
Actually, it's quite evident that I know a bit more than you do - I read the original news reports, whereas you seem to have gone with the hope reports. That's how I know she was dying.
Three: "Faith demands that we do the morally correct thing and at the same time put it in God's hands. "
Fine: stay away from hospitals, then. Don't bother with medical care. Just "put it in God's hands" and hope you don't die.
"Catholics are also called to be obedient to the teachings of the Church and the magisterium whether you agree with them or not."
I have been convinced of that over the past few days, actually, that Catholics are required by the Church to let women die in pregnancy rather than save them. That the belief I held that the Church allowed abortion to save a woman's life is erroneous; that the Church discards women who will die in pregnancy as callously as a worn-out machine. I've been convinced. I now believe that no hospital, anywhere, should permit any Catholic to work there unless the Catholic affirms that they will never allow the mandate of the Church for death to override the hospital's ethical obligation to provide healthcare.
5.26.2010 | 3:42pm
cathyf says:
Jesurgislac, it is a deducible fact that the doctors believed that the mother would survive the abortion. If they did not believe that she would survive surgery then they would not have done the elective surgery. If her condition was such that she could survive the surgery of abortion, then it was such that she could wait and see if her condition would stabilize, or improve. Sick people temporarily get better all of the time.
You tell us that you believe the official statement of the hospital, doctors and medical experts who are familiar with the facts of the case. But the hospital statement is logically inconsistent: Either they thought that mama was as sick as they claim they thought, and thus what they are calling an "abortion" was a (failed) direct attack on the mother who could not reasonably be expected to survive it, or they did not think that mama was all that sick, and they lied to her then, lied to the bishop later, and are lying to us now, about the seriousness of her condition.
You tell us that you believe the official statement of the hospital, doctors and medical experts who are familiar with the facts of the case. But the hospital statement is logically inconsistent: Either they thought that mama was as sick as they claim they thought, and thus what they are calling an "abortion" was a (failed) direct attack on the mother who could not reasonably be expected to survive it, or they did not think that mama was all that sick, and they lied to her then, lied to the bishop later, and are lying to us now, about the seriousness of her condition.
5.26.2010 | 3:58pm
shirley elizabeth says:
This is my story, and it is very close to me:
I was a year and a few months when my mother found she was pregnant with her ninth child and my father had a dream in which the baby's name was to be David. Less than two months later the doctors called my mom to come in to run her blood work again, because her white blood cell count was off the charts. She was diagnosed with Leukemia. Nowadays, the type of cancer she had is actually a very simple cure (so says my genius sister...who actually researches in Barrows at St. Josephs), but they did not have the same knowledge twenty-one years ago.
The doctors advised her to abort the baby so she could be treated right away. It wasn't even a question to her. Yes, her life was at risk. Yes, she had eight children to raise and be mother to. But she did not see an abortion in this case (or any case) as anything but faithlessness and selfishness, and she would not give up her child.
There was still the hope that my mom could be treated after the baby was born, and my aunt was found to be a match for marrow donation, but the cancer progressed quickly and in her last week of life she bruised just from sitting on the piano bench. It was at least ten minutes after she was proclaimed dead that they were able to deliver the baby, and, over two months early and having not received air for so long, it was said that IF he survived he would be blind, deaf, and dumb and have mental handicaps.
But no. David grew up in perfect health.
In her journal my mom wrote of her fears, but also that she felt she was not meant to raise her children, that her calling was to bring them to this earth and that someone else would be provided to care for them. My dad remarried a woman who had five kids from a marriage with a cheating husband. She is the mother to us all, and my dad is father to all, and while this new mom changed our lives by coming in, my dad changed the lives of the five fatherless.
This is the fulfillment of faith. My mother is fulfilling her new calling, and someday we will all join her as a family.
I was a year and a few months when my mother found she was pregnant with her ninth child and my father had a dream in which the baby's name was to be David. Less than two months later the doctors called my mom to come in to run her blood work again, because her white blood cell count was off the charts. She was diagnosed with Leukemia. Nowadays, the type of cancer she had is actually a very simple cure (so says my genius sister...who actually researches in Barrows at St. Josephs), but they did not have the same knowledge twenty-one years ago.
The doctors advised her to abort the baby so she could be treated right away. It wasn't even a question to her. Yes, her life was at risk. Yes, she had eight children to raise and be mother to. But she did not see an abortion in this case (or any case) as anything but faithlessness and selfishness, and she would not give up her child.
There was still the hope that my mom could be treated after the baby was born, and my aunt was found to be a match for marrow donation, but the cancer progressed quickly and in her last week of life she bruised just from sitting on the piano bench. It was at least ten minutes after she was proclaimed dead that they were able to deliver the baby, and, over two months early and having not received air for so long, it was said that IF he survived he would be blind, deaf, and dumb and have mental handicaps.
But no. David grew up in perfect health.
In her journal my mom wrote of her fears, but also that she felt she was not meant to raise her children, that her calling was to bring them to this earth and that someone else would be provided to care for them. My dad remarried a woman who had five kids from a marriage with a cheating husband. She is the mother to us all, and my dad is father to all, and while this new mom changed our lives by coming in, my dad changed the lives of the five fatherless.
This is the fulfillment of faith. My mother is fulfilling her new calling, and someday we will all join her as a family.
5.26.2010 | 4:13pm
shirley elizabeth says:
Also, as a bit of follow-up, when I was a senior in high school my second mother was diagnosed with malignant breast cancer and told she had six months to live. When she refused the radiations and chemotherapies she felt would kill her faster, her doctors said they wash their hands of her and pretty much "see you on the other side."
Well, my mom took her own route to recovery by changing her diet (long lot of information in there. We were already a very healthy family, sugar and soda not allowed in the house. She went 100% raw fruits & veggies for nearly two years). Her first check-up back the cancer had slowed, and after a year there was no sign of the cancer anywhere. That was five years ago, and she is still here, despite what the doctors and their information and opinions said.
You may have facts, but facts have nothing on faith.
Well, my mom took her own route to recovery by changing her diet (long lot of information in there. We were already a very healthy family, sugar and soda not allowed in the house. She went 100% raw fruits & veggies for nearly two years). Her first check-up back the cancer had slowed, and after a year there was no sign of the cancer anywhere. That was five years ago, and she is still here, despite what the doctors and their information and opinions said.
You may have facts, but facts have nothing on faith.
5.26.2010 | 4:21pm
Jesurgislac says:
cathyf says: Jesurgislac, it is a deducible fact that the doctors believed that the mother would survive the abortion. If they did not believe that she would survive surgery then they would not have done the elective surgery.
Standard practice for a first trimester abortion is aspiration. I've seen no evidence from the hospital which method they used, and it seems logical that, ill as she was, they opted for the least stressful method. Still, a Catholic hospital might not have had that option, ut a first trimester d&c is minor surgery - it's also usually performed with just a local anesthetic. It's not stressful. Pro-lifer lies about abortion invariably talk up how stressful and dangerous an operation it is, but these are mostly lies, and absolutely lies when told about first trimester abortions.
But the hospital statement is logically inconsistent:
Only if you believe pro-lifer lies about how stressful and dangerous it is to have an abortion. I've always been better informed than that.
shiirley elizabeth, your story is a wonderful testament to the pro-choice movement. How great for you to know your mother chose to have your brother at the risk of her life: how terrible it would be if you had to know that she had, as the Catholic Church have made clear they would prefer, been denied her free choice and had instead been forced to give up her life against her will. Your mother got to choose: may all women always get to choose.
Standard practice for a first trimester abortion is aspiration. I've seen no evidence from the hospital which method they used, and it seems logical that, ill as she was, they opted for the least stressful method. Still, a Catholic hospital might not have had that option, ut a first trimester d&c is minor surgery - it's also usually performed with just a local anesthetic. It's not stressful. Pro-lifer lies about abortion invariably talk up how stressful and dangerous an operation it is, but these are mostly lies, and absolutely lies when told about first trimester abortions.
But the hospital statement is logically inconsistent:
Only if you believe pro-lifer lies about how stressful and dangerous it is to have an abortion. I've always been better informed than that.
shiirley elizabeth, your story is a wonderful testament to the pro-choice movement. How great for you to know your mother chose to have your brother at the risk of her life: how terrible it would be if you had to know that she had, as the Catholic Church have made clear they would prefer, been denied her free choice and had instead been forced to give up her life against her will. Your mother got to choose: may all women always get to choose.
5.26.2010 | 4:50pm
starsdancing says:
shirley elizabeth, we don't have either facts or faith in your anecdote. We merely have an uncorroborated, highly specious personal story.
Frankly, as a breast cancer survivor who is the daughter and granddaughter of women who both died in their early fifties of breast cancer, I find your post highly irresponsible and dangerous and insulting as heck.
To claim your stepmother cured herself of a case of breast cancer that had progressed to the point where she had six months to live by eating raw veggies is dangerous beyond belief.
Unless you are willing to post all the medical data leading to the diagnosis along with her doctors' recommended treatment plan, there is no way for anyone to know if you're telling the truth or if there are other medical factors involved.
Sorry, but no woman with a case of breast cancer that advanced eats nothing but raw fruits and veggies for two years and cures herself of cancer. If she had been told she had six months to live, her cancer would have metastasized well beyond the breast at that point. No one has breast cancer contained entirely within the breast that is also so far advanced they only have six months to live. Breast cancer doesn't really kill people -- it's when the cancer travels to the central nervous system, the bone and/or vital organs that it becomes lethal.
Also, a baby deprived of oxygen for over ten minutes is not just fine and dandy, not an issue in the world, no problems.
This kind of specious nonsense does not help the situation. I hardly want people who think they can deprive a human being of the ability to breathe for 10+ minutes to be making decisions regarding a) my health and b) moral issues.
Frankly, I'm shocked this sort of dangerous, misleading, potentially lethal nonsense was allowed to be posted.
Frankly, as a breast cancer survivor who is the daughter and granddaughter of women who both died in their early fifties of breast cancer, I find your post highly irresponsible and dangerous and insulting as heck.
To claim your stepmother cured herself of a case of breast cancer that had progressed to the point where she had six months to live by eating raw veggies is dangerous beyond belief.
Unless you are willing to post all the medical data leading to the diagnosis along with her doctors' recommended treatment plan, there is no way for anyone to know if you're telling the truth or if there are other medical factors involved.
Sorry, but no woman with a case of breast cancer that advanced eats nothing but raw fruits and veggies for two years and cures herself of cancer. If she had been told she had six months to live, her cancer would have metastasized well beyond the breast at that point. No one has breast cancer contained entirely within the breast that is also so far advanced they only have six months to live. Breast cancer doesn't really kill people -- it's when the cancer travels to the central nervous system, the bone and/or vital organs that it becomes lethal.
Also, a baby deprived of oxygen for over ten minutes is not just fine and dandy, not an issue in the world, no problems.
This kind of specious nonsense does not help the situation. I hardly want people who think they can deprive a human being of the ability to breathe for 10+ minutes to be making decisions regarding a) my health and b) moral issues.
Frankly, I'm shocked this sort of dangerous, misleading, potentially lethal nonsense was allowed to be posted.
5.26.2010 | 5:37pm
Ann says:
shirleyelizabeth-thanks for sharing your story. Those without faith will not believe but those with faith will. Yes, your mother made the right choice.
stardancing-I am shocked at your very impolite, disrespectful post. I am shocked that your post was allowed to be posted on an ecumenical Christian website. You committed the sin of slander and have probably led others into it as well. What an angry, nasty comment.
stardancing-I am shocked at your very impolite, disrespectful post. I am shocked that your post was allowed to be posted on an ecumenical Christian website. You committed the sin of slander and have probably led others into it as well. What an angry, nasty comment.
5.26.2010 | 7:37pm
EMK says:
Actually, starsdancing, I know a woman from church who was diagnosed with breast cancer that had already begun to spread, refused treatment and went the organic/raw food route. In three years she was cancer free. I've heard several stories of such success, and there is this, as well
http://heraldextra.com/news/local/article_71fcf0cc-4c85-53ca-9ae3-e04cc39bee1b.html
http://heraldextra.com/news/local/article_71fcf0cc-4c85-53ca-9ae3-e04cc39bee1b.html
5.26.2010 | 8:43pm
starsdancing says:
Slander? Fine. Let her sue me. Then she'll have to prove her story -- stories, actually.
Actually, you just committed a sin of your own when you found me guilty of slander without benefit of a fair trial -- that in itself is actually pretty slanderous. You want me to sue you so the onus is on you to prove or disprove all this -- do you understand what any kind of defamation charge requires -- do you know who the burden of proof falls on in those cases? Be careful of the words you throw around.
I'm sorry, but I know a lot about this and most of these stories turn out to not be as "true" as you think they are. Either the cancer hasn't progressed as much as the person claims, there is a false reading or false readings of some kind, a misdiagnosis, or the person is combining dietary/lifestyle change with some traditional treatment.
The reason people have to be careful of this sort of anecdotal stuff is they may very well mislead someone who absolutely needs to be on chemo/radiation and/or require drastic surgery but who reads this and does this sort of thing with no medical input whatsoever.
Will you be responsible for that, then? Are you that convinced that all cancer patients should blow off their doctors' recommendations for treatment and munch on carrots and nuts until their cancer goes away?
Misleading, unsubstantiated psuedomedical nonsense is dangerous, dangerous business and it shouldn't be encouraged.
And how insulting, Ann, is your response to me? You pretty much just insinuated that my grandmother and mother would be alive today and I wouldn't have required any surgery or other treatment. Care to take responsibility for that diagnosis, too?
Actually, you just committed a sin of your own when you found me guilty of slander without benefit of a fair trial -- that in itself is actually pretty slanderous. You want me to sue you so the onus is on you to prove or disprove all this -- do you understand what any kind of defamation charge requires -- do you know who the burden of proof falls on in those cases? Be careful of the words you throw around.
I'm sorry, but I know a lot about this and most of these stories turn out to not be as "true" as you think they are. Either the cancer hasn't progressed as much as the person claims, there is a false reading or false readings of some kind, a misdiagnosis, or the person is combining dietary/lifestyle change with some traditional treatment.
The reason people have to be careful of this sort of anecdotal stuff is they may very well mislead someone who absolutely needs to be on chemo/radiation and/or require drastic surgery but who reads this and does this sort of thing with no medical input whatsoever.
Will you be responsible for that, then? Are you that convinced that all cancer patients should blow off their doctors' recommendations for treatment and munch on carrots and nuts until their cancer goes away?
Misleading, unsubstantiated psuedomedical nonsense is dangerous, dangerous business and it shouldn't be encouraged.
And how insulting, Ann, is your response to me? You pretty much just insinuated that my grandmother and mother would be alive today and I wouldn't have required any surgery or other treatment. Care to take responsibility for that diagnosis, too?
5.27.2010 | 1:15pm
c matt says:
"You want me to sue you so the onus is on you to prove or disprove all this -- do you understand what any kind of defamation charge requires -- do you know who the burden of proof falls on in those cases? Be careful of the words you throw around"
As a technical matter, if you sue claiming defamation, the burden of proof is on the person suing to prove they were defamed.
As a technical matter, if you sue claiming defamation, the burden of proof is on the person suing to prove they were defamed.
5.28.2010 | 9:10am
starsdancing says:
Right, meaning if shirley whoever wants to sue me, she has to prove her claims, as does Ann for accusing me of slander.
Crying skepticism or non-belief of an anecdotal story isn't defamation.
Which would be my point.
This sort of stuff is appalling, not mention verging on the heretical. The implication is that God punishes those who don't believe "enough" with death and suffering, and He includes children among his victims. That those who do believe "enough" are rewarded with miraculous cures.
The reality is everyone is going to die and everyone is going to stand alone before God and be held accountable for their words and actions and I sure wouldn't want to be held accountable for telling someone the reason their mother or sister or child suffered and died while someone else's loved one lived was because they didn't have enough faith. That, actually, is a decidedly NOT Catholic view of faith and suffering.
Crying skepticism or non-belief of an anecdotal story isn't defamation.
Which would be my point.
This sort of stuff is appalling, not mention verging on the heretical. The implication is that God punishes those who don't believe "enough" with death and suffering, and He includes children among his victims. That those who do believe "enough" are rewarded with miraculous cures.
The reality is everyone is going to die and everyone is going to stand alone before God and be held accountable for their words and actions and I sure wouldn't want to be held accountable for telling someone the reason their mother or sister or child suffered and died while someone else's loved one lived was because they didn't have enough faith. That, actually, is a decidedly NOT Catholic view of faith and suffering.
5.28.2010 | 5:33pm
Joel Pinheiro says:
Abortion is execrable, a heinous crime. No debate here.
The problem is: killing in self-defense is not necessarily morally wrong.
If one's life is at stake (one doesn't need the "certainty" of death; afterall, not even a bullet to the head means certain death), it is morally licit to use violence, even lethal violence (provided it is not excessive, that is, way beyond what would reasonably be necessary to defend oneself under the circumstances), against the aggressor.
One might say, "sure, but the aggressor with the gun is guilty. A baby in the womb isn't". Well, the self-defense argument holds even if the aggressor is, say, a severely mentally handicapped person who has no moral responsibility over their actions. If one is being attacked by such a person, it is morally licit to use lethal force against them, even though the aggressor is not sinning and is not responsible for the situation; even though his soul is as innocent as that of a baby.
How is this different from the case in which an unborn baby threatens the mother's life? Why is it then immoral to use reasonable violence? If there is a means by which the survival of the baby can be ensured or at least made more likely, then, of course, it must be used.
To say one "hopes for the best" sounds more like a naive optimism than Christian Hope. It doesn't solve anything. It is "possible" the victim won't die from the aggression; does it mean that he should, therefore, "hope for the best" and refrain from lethal self-defense which will probably save his life?
It is also not a question of the certainty or uncertainty of the deaths; it is also not about choosing between an "actual" or an "incomplete" person; we are not consequentialists, measuring people's values or calculating "expected future utilities given probability of survival". It is about the object of the action. And traditional Catholic morality doesn't see a problem in using lethal violence against an aggressor, even if the aggressor is not morally responsible for his action. One will always lament that the aggressor will die (no-one desires it as an end), but that doesn't mean lethal violence cannot be used against him.
I have not made up my mind on the issue. It is easy to slip from my argument above to completely unjustified killings. But, at the same time, it is hard to see what the morally relevant difference is between the two cases outlined above.
We need the doctrine of double-effect (already used to justify lethal self-defense and abortion in ectopic pregnancies); however, once its principles are looked close enough, they break down and everything is justified. How do we get out of this dilemma?
It would be enlightening to see what theologians thought of abortion to save the life of the mother before the 20th century. Perhaps the current enthusiasm with the "culture of life" (in itself a stupendously positive for the world, and a necessary counter-balance to the culture of death) has led to unnecessary exaggerations (as also with the death penalty debate, which before John Paul II had always been unquestionably and unanimously defended, and is now looked by some as a blatant sin against life.
The problem is: killing in self-defense is not necessarily morally wrong.
If one's life is at stake (one doesn't need the "certainty" of death; afterall, not even a bullet to the head means certain death), it is morally licit to use violence, even lethal violence (provided it is not excessive, that is, way beyond what would reasonably be necessary to defend oneself under the circumstances), against the aggressor.
One might say, "sure, but the aggressor with the gun is guilty. A baby in the womb isn't". Well, the self-defense argument holds even if the aggressor is, say, a severely mentally handicapped person who has no moral responsibility over their actions. If one is being attacked by such a person, it is morally licit to use lethal force against them, even though the aggressor is not sinning and is not responsible for the situation; even though his soul is as innocent as that of a baby.
How is this different from the case in which an unborn baby threatens the mother's life? Why is it then immoral to use reasonable violence? If there is a means by which the survival of the baby can be ensured or at least made more likely, then, of course, it must be used.
To say one "hopes for the best" sounds more like a naive optimism than Christian Hope. It doesn't solve anything. It is "possible" the victim won't die from the aggression; does it mean that he should, therefore, "hope for the best" and refrain from lethal self-defense which will probably save his life?
It is also not a question of the certainty or uncertainty of the deaths; it is also not about choosing between an "actual" or an "incomplete" person; we are not consequentialists, measuring people's values or calculating "expected future utilities given probability of survival". It is about the object of the action. And traditional Catholic morality doesn't see a problem in using lethal violence against an aggressor, even if the aggressor is not morally responsible for his action. One will always lament that the aggressor will die (no-one desires it as an end), but that doesn't mean lethal violence cannot be used against him.
I have not made up my mind on the issue. It is easy to slip from my argument above to completely unjustified killings. But, at the same time, it is hard to see what the morally relevant difference is between the two cases outlined above.
We need the doctrine of double-effect (already used to justify lethal self-defense and abortion in ectopic pregnancies); however, once its principles are looked close enough, they break down and everything is justified. How do we get out of this dilemma?
It would be enlightening to see what theologians thought of abortion to save the life of the mother before the 20th century. Perhaps the current enthusiasm with the "culture of life" (in itself a stupendously positive for the world, and a necessary counter-balance to the culture of death) has led to unnecessary exaggerations (as also with the death penalty debate, which before John Paul II had always been unquestionably and unanimously defended, and is now looked by some as a blatant sin against life.
5.29.2010 | 4:35pm
Ann says:
stardancing-I am sorry that you are so angry. You are completely off topic and dishonest. I never questioned your family history. Your family history can be true and so can shirleyelizabeth's story. You have no right and no proof to say what you did.
I still find it ironic that those who are outraged at the thought of death of the mother have no feeling at all for the baby.
I still find it ironic that those who are outraged at the thought of death of the mother have no feeling at all for the baby.
5.29.2010 | 4:53pm
Ann says:
"The implication is that God punishes those who don't believe "enough" with death and suffering, and He includes children among his victims. That those who do believe "enough" are rewarded with miraculous cures. "
Stardancing-you have completely misstated what has been said and have implies things that have not been said.
"the reason their mother or sister or child suffered and died while someone else's loved one lived was because they didn't have enough faith. "
I don't recall making such a statement. I would not make such a statement.
What I said in regards to Shirleyelizabeth's story is that people of faith would/could believe her story because we do have faith, those without faith wouldn't believe it. Your anger and skepticism lead me to believe that you don't have faith in miracles.
I have had enough suffering in my life to know that God's reason's can be difficult to fathom except that HE can use everything for our good, the good of our soul. Some suffering is the consequence of our own actions and some is not. Our faith or lack of faith determines what we do with the suffering.
Basically you called shirleyelizabeth a liar. I wasn't referring to slander in the legal sense but in the moral sense. You accused her in public of telling untrue stories and judged her character to be lacking. I don't have time to go back to that particular comment for a quote but I recall that your criticims lacked charity and you didn't give her any benefit of the doubt. Yes, some stories are untrue but not all. There are miracles. You have no way of knowing for sure on this one. If you never, ever believe in miracles that is fine we don't have to get nasty.
Stardancing-you have completely misstated what has been said and have implies things that have not been said.
"the reason their mother or sister or child suffered and died while someone else's loved one lived was because they didn't have enough faith. "
I don't recall making such a statement. I would not make such a statement.
What I said in regards to Shirleyelizabeth's story is that people of faith would/could believe her story because we do have faith, those without faith wouldn't believe it. Your anger and skepticism lead me to believe that you don't have faith in miracles.
I have had enough suffering in my life to know that God's reason's can be difficult to fathom except that HE can use everything for our good, the good of our soul. Some suffering is the consequence of our own actions and some is not. Our faith or lack of faith determines what we do with the suffering.
Basically you called shirleyelizabeth a liar. I wasn't referring to slander in the legal sense but in the moral sense. You accused her in public of telling untrue stories and judged her character to be lacking. I don't have time to go back to that particular comment for a quote but I recall that your criticims lacked charity and you didn't give her any benefit of the doubt. Yes, some stories are untrue but not all. There are miracles. You have no way of knowing for sure on this one. If you never, ever believe in miracles that is fine we don't have to get nasty.
5.30.2010 | 3:15am
Brian says:
I love how this article embraces the importance of mystery and humility as an essential part of faith.
The challenge is that it avoids directing this humility to the one place where it might do the most good: the black and white, morally absolute nature of the doctrine in question.
As the article points out, God is literally unreasonable. Or more accurately, God is bigger than reason. His will is beyond what our minds can comprehend. And his plan cannot be captured by any belief or doctrine (including that one).
Claiming that God's plan can be reduced into a set of morally absolute beliefs IS arrogant. Profoundly so. And it leads down a very slippery slope (there be dragons down there sir...and terrorists).
People's outrage over this situation doesn't come from the Catholic Church's belief that abortion is wrong, and it has little to do with whether the mother was 100% going to die, or just 99%, or even 60%. It comes from the perception that this bishop had the arrogance to make a rigid, fundamentalist doctrine more important than a woman's life, the nun's history of selfless service, or the spiritual discernment of the people who actually had to make this agonizing decision.
Love is Truth. Faith is Truth. God is Truth. Doctrines are at best strong guidelines. Confusing the two is like trying to force an ocean into a thimble, while proclaiming that you know better than all those poor people who are trying to dance with the ocean, and catch a wave...
The challenge is that it avoids directing this humility to the one place where it might do the most good: the black and white, morally absolute nature of the doctrine in question.
As the article points out, God is literally unreasonable. Or more accurately, God is bigger than reason. His will is beyond what our minds can comprehend. And his plan cannot be captured by any belief or doctrine (including that one).
Claiming that God's plan can be reduced into a set of morally absolute beliefs IS arrogant. Profoundly so. And it leads down a very slippery slope (there be dragons down there sir...and terrorists).
People's outrage over this situation doesn't come from the Catholic Church's belief that abortion is wrong, and it has little to do with whether the mother was 100% going to die, or just 99%, or even 60%. It comes from the perception that this bishop had the arrogance to make a rigid, fundamentalist doctrine more important than a woman's life, the nun's history of selfless service, or the spiritual discernment of the people who actually had to make this agonizing decision.
Love is Truth. Faith is Truth. God is Truth. Doctrines are at best strong guidelines. Confusing the two is like trying to force an ocean into a thimble, while proclaiming that you know better than all those poor people who are trying to dance with the ocean, and catch a wave...
5.31.2010 | 10:38am
Ann says:
"Claiming that God's plan can be reduced into a set of morally absolute beliefs IS arrogant."
Then I guess you would say that God is arrogant.
God gave us a set of morally absolute beliefs, the 10 Commandments. Is God arrogant? No, He is Love and Mercy. Jesus taught us to apply God's laws with love and mercy. That is what the bishop is doing, It is love and mercy to point out to others when they are wrong.
The bishop is not arrogant. He didn't make this up and he didn't do anything except to confirm that what happened was wrong. And if you read the statement and Q and A on the Diocese of Phoenix website you will see that the nun was not singled out by the bishop or the diocese. Anyone and everyone involved in this abortion were wrong and suffer the same consequences.
"Love is Truth. Faith is Truth. God is Truth. Doctrines are at best strong guidelines. " So are you saying that there is no moral truth? Was God wrong when he gave us the 10 Commandments? Are the 10 Commandments just "guidelines"?
Truth by definition is an absolute otherwise it is just a suggestion or a possiblity. Something is either true or it isn't. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are based on truths and explain moral or religious truth to us. The doctrine is only flawed if the underlying principle is not true. In this case you would have to argue that God was wrong when he said "thou shalt not kill" in order to argue that the Church's position that direct abortion is murder.
Then I guess you would say that God is arrogant.
God gave us a set of morally absolute beliefs, the 10 Commandments. Is God arrogant? No, He is Love and Mercy. Jesus taught us to apply God's laws with love and mercy. That is what the bishop is doing, It is love and mercy to point out to others when they are wrong.
The bishop is not arrogant. He didn't make this up and he didn't do anything except to confirm that what happened was wrong. And if you read the statement and Q and A on the Diocese of Phoenix website you will see that the nun was not singled out by the bishop or the diocese. Anyone and everyone involved in this abortion were wrong and suffer the same consequences.
"Love is Truth. Faith is Truth. God is Truth. Doctrines are at best strong guidelines. " So are you saying that there is no moral truth? Was God wrong when he gave us the 10 Commandments? Are the 10 Commandments just "guidelines"?
Truth by definition is an absolute otherwise it is just a suggestion or a possiblity. Something is either true or it isn't. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are based on truths and explain moral or religious truth to us. The doctrine is only flawed if the underlying principle is not true. In this case you would have to argue that God was wrong when he said "thou shalt not kill" in order to argue that the Church's position that direct abortion is murder.
5.31.2010 | 11:02pm
radsroc says:
I enjoyed reading your article, with its clear delineation of the issues, and particularly appreciated your compassionate acknowledgment of the agonizing nature of this particular issue. I searched Bishop Olmsted's statement in vain for any glimmer of such compassion. Compassionate concern for others was and is a founding principle of the Catholic faith I learned in Ireland, and I am increasingly concerned that it is lacking among the male leaders of the American Church.
As a physician, having reviewed publicly available information, I think a win-win situation, though certainly possible, was wishful thinking. As others have pointed out, pulmonary hypertension is a description that covers a range of conditions and ranges in severity from mild to life-threatening. It is impossible to tell where the patient in this case fits, but it is clear that excellent physicians believed that her life was at risk. How could any compassionate person take such a risk with the lives of a mother and of her four other children? I believe that it is profoundly immoral to require this unfortunate mother (who may not even share our beliefs) to accept a substantial risk of death because of an absolutist principle.
p.s. I find the Pontius Pilate-like suggestion that she should have been transferred to a non-Catholic hospital particularly distasteful.
As a physician, having reviewed publicly available information, I think a win-win situation, though certainly possible, was wishful thinking. As others have pointed out, pulmonary hypertension is a description that covers a range of conditions and ranges in severity from mild to life-threatening. It is impossible to tell where the patient in this case fits, but it is clear that excellent physicians believed that her life was at risk. How could any compassionate person take such a risk with the lives of a mother and of her four other children? I believe that it is profoundly immoral to require this unfortunate mother (who may not even share our beliefs) to accept a substantial risk of death because of an absolutist principle.
p.s. I find the Pontius Pilate-like suggestion that she should have been transferred to a non-Catholic hospital particularly distasteful.
6.1.2010 | 6:23am
severn says:
The Church - and any organised religion - starts from a position of total arrogance, not humility. 'God exists, and you must believe it because I (or a supposed authority) says so.' Anything any theologian says starts with this position. And it can lead to any consequence. Including the cynical amorality of the Catholic hierarchy in dealing with the child rapists in its organisation.
The thought that anyone could argue in favour of abandoning this woman - and mother of other children - to some supposed destiny, when the surgeons had a good chance of saving her - and no chance of saving the child - makes me appalled beyond bearing.
The thought that anyone could argue in favour of abandoning this woman - and mother of other children - to some supposed destiny, when the surgeons had a good chance of saving her - and no chance of saving the child - makes me appalled beyond bearing.
6.1.2010 | 6:44am
Jesurgislac says:
"I believe that it is profoundly immoral to require this unfortunate mother (who may not even share our beliefs) to accept a substantial risk of death because of an absolutist principle. "
Thank you for saying that!
"The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath" - the principles that should lie behind a committment to the prevention of abortion, that human life is valuable,seem to have been lost in the rigorous application of the Law that "Abortion is Wrong!" - so that in defense of "pro-life", a pregnant woman would have been allowed to die.
Thank you for saying that!
"The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath" - the principles that should lie behind a committment to the prevention of abortion, that human life is valuable,seem to have been lost in the rigorous application of the Law that "Abortion is Wrong!" - so that in defense of "pro-life", a pregnant woman would have been allowed to die.
6.1.2010 | 3:45pm
The_gadfly says:
I got a wonderful laugh from Elizabeth Scalia's acrobatic defense of the church;s actions in excommunicating Sr McBride for allowing an abortion on that woman in Arizona with pulmonary hypertension who was in her 11th week of pregnancy.
Among other things, Ms. Scalia said the following:
Where both mother and child will surely perish—as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy threatening to burst a fallopian tube, or a uterine cancer or hemorrhage necessitating the whole removal of the uterus—the death of the child is a secondary (and unintentional) result of the life-saving treatment. This “indirect” abortion is made distinct from a “direct” (and therefore illicit) abortion, by intention.
Apparently Ms Scalia is unaware of the church's position on ectopic pregnancies, which ALWAYS--I repeat, ALWAYS--end in death of the mother and fetus, unless the fetus is aborted. That position can be found at http://www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml#partfour; in particular, item 48, which states:
In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.31
Ectopic pregnancies are extrauterine, that is, not in the uterus.
(Odd, isn't it, that this allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing, *loving* god would allow such a pregnancy, isn't it?)
Gosh, I wonder how Ms. Scalia's gonna defend the church's view of ectopic pregnancy, in view of this teaching of the bishops.
Among other things, Ms. Scalia said the following:
Where both mother and child will surely perish—as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy threatening to burst a fallopian tube, or a uterine cancer or hemorrhage necessitating the whole removal of the uterus—the death of the child is a secondary (and unintentional) result of the life-saving treatment. This “indirect” abortion is made distinct from a “direct” (and therefore illicit) abortion, by intention.
Apparently Ms Scalia is unaware of the church's position on ectopic pregnancies, which ALWAYS--I repeat, ALWAYS--end in death of the mother and fetus, unless the fetus is aborted. That position can be found at http://www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml#partfour; in particular, item 48, which states:
In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.31
Ectopic pregnancies are extrauterine, that is, not in the uterus.
(Odd, isn't it, that this allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing, *loving* god would allow such a pregnancy, isn't it?)
Gosh, I wonder how Ms. Scalia's gonna defend the church's view of ectopic pregnancy, in view of this teaching of the bishops.
6.1.2010 | 4:00pm
The_gadfly says:
Regarding the discussion above by Shirley Elizabath about her mother, who who was (allegedly) diagnosed with cancer and who beat it through diet, I would like to point out 2 things:
1. I doubt that there has ever been a single **documented** case of anyone with cancer going into remission as a result of prayer or changes in diet. I have tried to track down these cases and every time you try that, you come to a dead end. The papers are missing, for example, or the DX was made by someone who erred, or was outright incompetent.
2. Much more significant: WHY DOES GOD HATE AMPUTEES? I've never heard of a single case of god restoring an amputated part--not even a little finger! Do any of you believers find it odd that altho god can do these miracles, he seems not to care about people with missing limbs or digits?
1. I doubt that there has ever been a single **documented** case of anyone with cancer going into remission as a result of prayer or changes in diet. I have tried to track down these cases and every time you try that, you come to a dead end. The papers are missing, for example, or the DX was made by someone who erred, or was outright incompetent.
2. Much more significant: WHY DOES GOD HATE AMPUTEES? I've never heard of a single case of god restoring an amputated part--not even a little finger! Do any of you believers find it odd that altho god can do these miracles, he seems not to care about people with missing limbs or digits?
6.1.2010 | 4:41pm
The_gadfly says:
Clarification:
In my comments about ectopic pregnancy, I inadvertently omitted some important qualifiers:
In some cases--not many--there is a spontaneous ("natural") miscarriage.
But if there is no miscarriage, and the woman but continues to carry the (ectopic) pregnancy, childbirth is not "natural" (Aquinas, are you listening?)--because there is no uterus to expel the fetus. Instead, the mother will die unless the fetus is delivered surgically. There are not a lot of these cases recorded in the medical literature, because usually, the life of the mother is threatened.
In my comments about ectopic pregnancy, I inadvertently omitted some important qualifiers:
In some cases--not many--there is a spontaneous ("natural") miscarriage.
But if there is no miscarriage, and the woman but continues to carry the (ectopic) pregnancy, childbirth is not "natural" (Aquinas, are you listening?)--because there is no uterus to expel the fetus. Instead, the mother will die unless the fetus is delivered surgically. There are not a lot of these cases recorded in the medical literature, because usually, the life of the mother is threatened.
6.2.2010 | 10:09am
Matt says:
Why is it that most people that I see alerting the public about the horrors of abortion are men? Obviously most people posting to this site, do not agree with the position that the Mother and the administration took. I say let our creator decide on their judgment day. Leave to God what is Gods. If you are in that position and you decide to follow thorough with the pregentecy more power to you. However, we must remember that we have a forgiving God who loves us. No matter what we do even in our worst of days. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
6.2.2010 | 10:32pm
Maxim says:
This whole thread demonstrates that Modern Culture is near brain-death; "feelings" are allowed to override any other consideration of doctrine, and in the "minds" of many may be said to be the sole moral determinant. Truth is truth, no matter how I or anyone else feels about it. Even in the article itself, which I thought very good, the ethics of aborting the baby is treated as a matter of percentages. Even if I believe the death of both mother and child are certain, it is still a very different thing, morally, to take positive action to end the life I believe to be of least consequence; in these kinds of calculations, as someone else has said several times already, the baby looses. We shouldn't even be making such calculations; it used to be called "playing God", but modern people, like Adam and Eve, are supremely confident in their ability to play this role.
For those of Faith, Death is not ceasing to exist. Those without Faith, or of weak faith, regard this world as the only real one, so all their calculations have to do with increasing the apparent good of this world, but for those who live in the reality of another world, everything must be predicated according to this reality. This is what the Church does, when it is true to itself, and this is why her pronouncements make no sense to those who rely only on human wisdom; they have other gods, who they defend with all the passion and vehemence of which they are capable. This is demonstrated when starsdancing, in effect, with purple face screams "Medicine cures people, not diet, and not God!" and spits in the face of the hapless interlocutor who has blasphemed her deity; clearly, she would excommunicate the offender without any hesitation at all.
For those of Faith, Death is not ceasing to exist. Those without Faith, or of weak faith, regard this world as the only real one, so all their calculations have to do with increasing the apparent good of this world, but for those who live in the reality of another world, everything must be predicated according to this reality. This is what the Church does, when it is true to itself, and this is why her pronouncements make no sense to those who rely only on human wisdom; they have other gods, who they defend with all the passion and vehemence of which they are capable. This is demonstrated when starsdancing, in effect, with purple face screams "Medicine cures people, not diet, and not God!" and spits in the face of the hapless interlocutor who has blasphemed her deity; clearly, she would excommunicate the offender without any hesitation at all.
6.3.2010 | 12:39am
Maxim says:
Saying that people are being "punished" when they are excommunicated shows that people don't understand what excommunication is; the same with saying Bishops are forcing people to go against their own will by threat of excommunication. Bishops can't force people to do anything; it is governments that have the capacity for coercive action. Excommunication is guidance; it is saying to someone "You have departed so far from the spirit of the Church that we can no longer in conscience administer to you the blessings of life in the Church". Bishops do not force people out of the Church, but it is their duty to inform those who of their own free will have wandered from the Church and bowed themselves down before other gods of the reality of their spiritual status, whether they be monks, priests, or politicians. When someone has permitted himself to dissolve into the ethical morass of modernity to the extent that his actions reflect apostasy from traditional Christianity, then this apostasy must be reluctantly recognised by the Church.
6.3.2010 | 3:12am
Jesurgislac says:
Maxim: Even if I believe the death of both mother and child are certain, it is still a very different thing, morally, to take positive action to end the life I believe to be of least consequence
So in your view, it is NOT positive action when a doctor deliberately withholds life-saving treatment from a patient in the sure knowledge that this withholding will end the patient's life?
In other words, with regard to this woman in Phoenix, or to Terri Schiavo (though that was a very different matter, as Mrs Schiavo's cerebral cortex was irrecoverably dead and she herself was determined, when brain-alive, not to have wanted to be kept in perpetuity without brain-life - neither of which applied to the Phoenix woman) - when doctors withhold care and end a patient's life, as Elizabeth Scalia and others on this thread feel they should have done to this woman in Phoenix, that is Okay. The pregnant woman dies, the fetus dies with her, it's done by actively withholding treatment from the mother, and because actively withholding treatment is not a positive action, causing death in this way is morally neutral.
The odd thing is, that Elizabeth Scalia herself argued just the other way with regard to withholding treatment from Terri Schiavo's body. Perhaps she will correct you when you argue that it's not "positive action" to end two lives by withholding treatment.
Perhaps not.
So in your view, it is NOT positive action when a doctor deliberately withholds life-saving treatment from a patient in the sure knowledge that this withholding will end the patient's life?
In other words, with regard to this woman in Phoenix, or to Terri Schiavo (though that was a very different matter, as Mrs Schiavo's cerebral cortex was irrecoverably dead and she herself was determined, when brain-alive, not to have wanted to be kept in perpetuity without brain-life - neither of which applied to the Phoenix woman) - when doctors withhold care and end a patient's life, as Elizabeth Scalia and others on this thread feel they should have done to this woman in Phoenix, that is Okay. The pregnant woman dies, the fetus dies with her, it's done by actively withholding treatment from the mother, and because actively withholding treatment is not a positive action, causing death in this way is morally neutral.
The odd thing is, that Elizabeth Scalia herself argued just the other way with regard to withholding treatment from Terri Schiavo's body. Perhaps she will correct you when you argue that it's not "positive action" to end two lives by withholding treatment.
Perhaps not.
6.3.2010 | 10:29am
matt says:
My favorite argument that people are using is, We are messing with the will of GOD. I guess these same people don't take any medicine for their heart conditions or take insulin. If you take medicines aren't you/we interferring with the will of GOD. Just a question and where do you draw the line.
Any by the way why haven't ALL the abusive priests been excommunicated. They have definalty affected more lives than the women in the story.
Any by the way why haven't ALL the abusive priests been excommunicated. They have definalty affected more lives than the women in the story.
6.3.2010 | 4:51pm
Ann says:
"The pregnant woman dies, the fetus dies with her, it's done by actively withholding treatment from the mother, and because actively withholding treatment is not a positive action, causing death in this way is morally neutral."
These kinds of statements would make me laugh if they were not so disingenuous as to be sad and chilling. NO ONE on this thread who is opposed to this direct abortion proposed that treatment be withheld from the mother. Abortion is not a treatment and a baby is not a disease.
The arguments of the pro abortion side have become intellectually dishonest. Please stick to the facts and don't twist what others say. Those opposed to this action have been accused of being cold hearted, callous, withholding treatment from the mother, wanting the mother to die, etc. None of those things are true. Those in support of this abortion have been unkind and uncharitable. If you have to be mean and dishonest what does that say about the strength of your argument? If you are right, then you should be able to discuss it honestly and nicely without comments on your opponents character or lack thereof.
These kinds of statements would make me laugh if they were not so disingenuous as to be sad and chilling. NO ONE on this thread who is opposed to this direct abortion proposed that treatment be withheld from the mother. Abortion is not a treatment and a baby is not a disease.
The arguments of the pro abortion side have become intellectually dishonest. Please stick to the facts and don't twist what others say. Those opposed to this action have been accused of being cold hearted, callous, withholding treatment from the mother, wanting the mother to die, etc. None of those things are true. Those in support of this abortion have been unkind and uncharitable. If you have to be mean and dishonest what does that say about the strength of your argument? If you are right, then you should be able to discuss it honestly and nicely without comments on your opponents character or lack thereof.
6.3.2010 | 8:28pm
Maxim says:
Jesurgislac: You're going to have to try to hold on to some elementary distinctions, instead of lumping everything together into one huge, vastly confused category. The positive action I referred to was that of acting to take a life for the benefit, real or supposed, of another life, not of withholding medical treatment of any kind, and yes, positive action still does mean making a decision to take action, and cannot possibly be applied to a situation where no action is taken, though of course it can sometimes be wrong to refuse to take action; please be more precise in your thinking.
These kinds of situations were less complicated back in the day when doctors were still required to take the Hippocratic Oath, which enjoined that doctors first of all "Do no harm" to anyone as the result of their treatments. This oath, I believe, was consciously abandoned by the medical profession at large in order to enable its practitioners to "play God" in various and sundry ways now approved by society, which of course was largely what the Oath was intended to prevent; due to its suppression, we are now on the fast track to the world of Nazi Germany, where doctors make various kinds of judgements concerning the value of their patients' lives, and feel themselves free to act to end lives deemed less worthy, and to engage in medical experimentation on these supposedly worthless lives (such as those contained in test-tubes).
It is no wonder that people are confused over these issues, for we have permitted the erosion of all hard and fast ethical boundaries, and people are left groping in moral vertigo for some leftover shreds of moral purpose, and consequently usually attach themselves to the most gratuitous and ephemeral "values" as the focus of their moral universe. It will not be possible to address your manifold confusions adequately without going far off topic, for at bottom, these are matters of philosophy. Your philosophy of life is Modern, not Christian, and therefore all your thoughts which pertain to matters of Faith are in confusion. The Faith delivered to the Apostles is just as relevant as it ever was, and only this Faith is able to negotiate the Modern quagmire without devaluing certain lives, and consequently redefining all life as an instrumental resource in the hands of Power, to be used and manipulated according to the interests of that Power, and Love will have precious little place in these calculations.
These kinds of situations were less complicated back in the day when doctors were still required to take the Hippocratic Oath, which enjoined that doctors first of all "Do no harm" to anyone as the result of their treatments. This oath, I believe, was consciously abandoned by the medical profession at large in order to enable its practitioners to "play God" in various and sundry ways now approved by society, which of course was largely what the Oath was intended to prevent; due to its suppression, we are now on the fast track to the world of Nazi Germany, where doctors make various kinds of judgements concerning the value of their patients' lives, and feel themselves free to act to end lives deemed less worthy, and to engage in medical experimentation on these supposedly worthless lives (such as those contained in test-tubes).
It is no wonder that people are confused over these issues, for we have permitted the erosion of all hard and fast ethical boundaries, and people are left groping in moral vertigo for some leftover shreds of moral purpose, and consequently usually attach themselves to the most gratuitous and ephemeral "values" as the focus of their moral universe. It will not be possible to address your manifold confusions adequately without going far off topic, for at bottom, these are matters of philosophy. Your philosophy of life is Modern, not Christian, and therefore all your thoughts which pertain to matters of Faith are in confusion. The Faith delivered to the Apostles is just as relevant as it ever was, and only this Faith is able to negotiate the Modern quagmire without devaluing certain lives, and consequently redefining all life as an instrumental resource in the hands of Power, to be used and manipulated according to the interests of that Power, and Love will have precious little place in these calculations.
6.4.2010 | 7:04pm
Maxim says:
matt: Of course, the will of God is that we act in accordance with His will, otherwise, it would be wrong to act at all. We are required to care for our own bodies, for the well-being of others, and to act to bring order and prosperity to the World at large. Medicine is one of the ways we exercise care for one another, or it was, before it became an "industry" and doctors and hospitals the property of insurance companies. Medical care, however, is not an infinite good; it can, under certain circumstances, become an evil. The key to pious medical care is in the word "care"; walking in humility under heaven and showing mercy to those in need. Modern medicine, though, is often possessed of a hubris which acts as if Man himself holds the mastery over matters of life and death; the clearest expression I have ever heard of this was when Gene Simmons was coming to town to hold a benefit concert for someone who had contracted some rare incurable disease. When asked by an interviewer if he had anything to say to the people of Portland, he said "Yeah; I want everyone to come out to this thing so we can show God how angry we are that He would do this to this great guy, and that we're not going to take it anymore, and we're going to take things into our own hands, and find a cure". You don't often hear it expressed that directly, but I think much of modern medicine resides in this spirit. There may be a line of demarcation which, when crossed, would make medicine into another form of black magic; like most ethical lines of demarcation, it is difficult to tell just where the Rubicon lies. My instincts tell me we are drawing near to its banks.
Chapter 28 of "The Screwtape Letters" is indeed relevant to the topic at hand. I also remember (vaguely!) a portion of "The Great Divorce" which seems equally apposite. A blessed spirit has come down from the heavenlies to meet the shade of her former husband. He keeps trying to make a great thing of the pathos surrounding her death, and she has to keep reminding him "I'm not dead; I live, and am filled with blessedness". For those who have gone to live among the blessed, it is indeed ridiculous to make a great thing over the manner of their death. A doctor was once crying at the grave of one of the righteous departed, and saying "If you had come to me for treatment, I could have saved you" when he had a vision in which the man stood before him and said "I don't want to live there anymore; this is where I need to be".
Chapter 28 of "The Screwtape Letters" is indeed relevant to the topic at hand. I also remember (vaguely!) a portion of "The Great Divorce" which seems equally apposite. A blessed spirit has come down from the heavenlies to meet the shade of her former husband. He keeps trying to make a great thing of the pathos surrounding her death, and she has to keep reminding him "I'm not dead; I live, and am filled with blessedness". For those who have gone to live among the blessed, it is indeed ridiculous to make a great thing over the manner of their death. A doctor was once crying at the grave of one of the righteous departed, and saying "If you had come to me for treatment, I could have saved you" when he had a vision in which the man stood before him and said "I don't want to live there anymore; this is where I need to be".
6.7.2010 | 5:55am
Jesurgislac says:
Ann: ". NO ONE on this thread who is opposed to this direct abortion proposed that treatment be withheld from the mother."
The life-saving treatment which people on this thread were proposing should be withheld from the mother, ensuring BOTH her death and that of the unborn baby, was abortion. Quibbling about how anything else that could have saved the mother's life is deliberate intellectual confusion. The doctors - and Sister McBride - at that hospital in Phoenix had a clear choice: Withhold life-saving treatment and kill two: perform an abortion and kill one.
People who are unalterably opposed to abortion under all and any circumstances, do need then to ask themselves: why oppose abortion EVEN WHEN that means two die instead of one? If deliberately killing by withholding treatment is Okay, even when two lives are lost instead of one as a direct result, can opposition to abortion really be framed in "pro-life" terms?
Maxim: "These kinds of situations were less complicated back in the day when doctors were still required to take the Hippocratic Oath, which enjoined that doctors first of all "Do no harm" to anyone as the result of their treatments. "
I think you will find that even back in those days, doctors did not think that "first do no harm" meant "passively accept the deaths of two, when action means that one will live".
The life-saving treatment which people on this thread were proposing should be withheld from the mother, ensuring BOTH her death and that of the unborn baby, was abortion. Quibbling about how anything else that could have saved the mother's life is deliberate intellectual confusion. The doctors - and Sister McBride - at that hospital in Phoenix had a clear choice: Withhold life-saving treatment and kill two: perform an abortion and kill one.
People who are unalterably opposed to abortion under all and any circumstances, do need then to ask themselves: why oppose abortion EVEN WHEN that means two die instead of one? If deliberately killing by withholding treatment is Okay, even when two lives are lost instead of one as a direct result, can opposition to abortion really be framed in "pro-life" terms?
Maxim: "These kinds of situations were less complicated back in the day when doctors were still required to take the Hippocratic Oath, which enjoined that doctors first of all "Do no harm" to anyone as the result of their treatments. "
I think you will find that even back in those days, doctors did not think that "first do no harm" meant "passively accept the deaths of two, when action means that one will live".
6.7.2010 | 1:49pm
matt says:
Maxim: I say WE do not need to have these discussions. LET GOD judge the mother and the Sister when their time comes. LET GOD Judge everyone's faults when they meet him.
If you do not want to go to a hospital because it's evil or practicing black magic that's your right.
If you do not want to go to a hospital because it's evil or practicing black magic that's your right.
6.10.2010 | 3:07am
Maxim says:
Killing is not a kind of physical or psychological therapy, no matter how much it may benefit another. As to the kinds of hard choices that were sometimes made in the past, they are, to my mind, very different in spirit than the "hard choices" we are regularly presented with in the press as insoluble ethical dilemmas, each designed to erode some moral bastion in the public mind, in order to pave the way for further inroads on the way to the mechanized, compassionless society; that this is usually done in the name of compassion is truly disingenuous. The kinds of choices doctors in the past made while fighting in the trenches, trying to pull anything out of the wreck, are not at all similar to the contemporary situation, when the doctors and "ethicists" essentially regard the infant as trash to be jettisoned the moment they think there might be some kind of problem months in advance. Then, sometimes a baby would die while they were fighting for the life of the mother, sometimes a living infant was pulled from the mother's dead body, and sometimes, of course, they both died. Sometimes doctors didn't operate according to the highest standards of their profession; there were even abortions performed on the sly. The Oath, and the pressures of professional propriety, still exerted the influence of a high ideal, which the medical profession at large has now lost; the "difficult choices" of medical ethicists in our day are really crocodile tears, because they don't really believe the baby has a right to exist. It's not really "a life for a life" either; they would abort five hundred babies to save the life of one who they truly regard as a human being.
Right to Life means that the defenceless have as much of a right to their life as you or I, whether they are in wombs, wheelchairs, hospital beds, or care homes. "Pro-Choice" means that all these lives, in the near future if not now, may have their value predicated on the convenience of some other person, who may exercise their "freedom to choose" by denying life to those whose lives they have decided aren't worth living. The value of a life, whether another's or our own, is beyond the competence of any human being to determine; did we ask to be born, or was it by our own will that we came into existence? We don't know what the value of a life is; God knows, and we can't even guess what His purposes may be.
Right to Life means that the defenceless have as much of a right to their life as you or I, whether they are in wombs, wheelchairs, hospital beds, or care homes. "Pro-Choice" means that all these lives, in the near future if not now, may have their value predicated on the convenience of some other person, who may exercise their "freedom to choose" by denying life to those whose lives they have decided aren't worth living. The value of a life, whether another's or our own, is beyond the competence of any human being to determine; did we ask to be born, or was it by our own will that we came into existence? We don't know what the value of a life is; God knows, and we can't even guess what His purposes may be.
6.11.2010 | 5:32am
Jesurgislac says:
Maxim, so you believe in the Right To Life. How is it, then, that you are arguing so very hard for doctors in the situation described, to let both mother and unborn baby die, rather than save the only life that can be saved?
8.3.2010 | 7:36pm
Joseph says:
Humility is indeed a good starting point when discussing a painful, tragic moral dilemma such as this one. What humility means is that not a one of us knows the mind of God. God's ways are beyond our ways. Faith and knowledge are not the same thing. Inherent in faith is humility. With faith we do not have knowledge. We do have beliefs. We pray, we think, we discern, we debate, we read, we learn the teachings of the Church. We do all these things in order to form our consciences. We then must follow our conscience. Our best guess is that our judgment before God will be based upon how diligently and sincerely we attempted to form our conscience and how courageously and lovingly we have followed our conscience.
This issue is complicated. It is not clear what the correct moral choice is. God's will in this situation is not clear or easily discerned. The way that we know this is that good, moral, intelligent people of good will are disagreeing. There are theologians and ethicists who are debating what choices are morally permitted in this circumstance. And they are not agreeing. It is arrogant for any of us to claim we "know" the mind of God about this matter. We may have beliefs about the correct moral choice - we may believe them passionately with our whole mind, soul and strength. But it remains a belief and requires humility before God and before God's creation.
We do not ask our police officers to stand humbly by, trusting in God, when a mentally ill person runs at another human being wielding a knife. Those police officers are forced to make split second, life or death decisions. The rest of us have the luxury to sit on the sidelines and debate their actions in hindsight.
Sr. McBride, the medical staff, the ethics committee, the mother had to make a decision. What a horrible decision to have to make. I have no reason to doubt that all of them anguished over this decision before making the decision that they believed was the morally correct and courageous thing to do (some "good" Catholics believe they did the right thing and some "good" Catholics believe they did not).
While I do believe these issues need to be debated, discussed, researched, and most importantly, prayed over...I also believe that unless those advocating that both mother and child be left to die are willing to meet with this mother, her children and her husband and explain to them while they believe that the world would be a morally better place if she were dead, then it might be better to pray for her and her family and withhold judgment on Sr. McBride.
This issue is complicated. It is not clear what the correct moral choice is. God's will in this situation is not clear or easily discerned. The way that we know this is that good, moral, intelligent people of good will are disagreeing. There are theologians and ethicists who are debating what choices are morally permitted in this circumstance. And they are not agreeing. It is arrogant for any of us to claim we "know" the mind of God about this matter. We may have beliefs about the correct moral choice - we may believe them passionately with our whole mind, soul and strength. But it remains a belief and requires humility before God and before God's creation.
We do not ask our police officers to stand humbly by, trusting in God, when a mentally ill person runs at another human being wielding a knife. Those police officers are forced to make split second, life or death decisions. The rest of us have the luxury to sit on the sidelines and debate their actions in hindsight.
Sr. McBride, the medical staff, the ethics committee, the mother had to make a decision. What a horrible decision to have to make. I have no reason to doubt that all of them anguished over this decision before making the decision that they believed was the morally correct and courageous thing to do (some "good" Catholics believe they did the right thing and some "good" Catholics believe they did not).
While I do believe these issues need to be debated, discussed, researched, and most importantly, prayed over...I also believe that unless those advocating that both mother and child be left to die are willing to meet with this mother, her children and her husband and explain to them while they believe that the world would be a morally better place if she were dead, then it might be better to pray for her and her family and withhold judgment on Sr. McBride.
1.27.2011 | 5:58pm
bible lessons says:
Elizabeth,
You put this very beautifully. I can't imagine ever having to be put in that position. I would, without hesitation, give my life for either of my sons, but this would be much more difficult. I believe that if we truly have faith in our great God, then we should take what he has given us. It may not be an ideal situation, but if God's plan is for the mother to die giving birth, then who are we to come in the way of that? Present day, I believe that we rely too much on ourselves and others rather than put our trust in God. He does know what He is doing, after all!
-Brenda Thompson
You put this very beautifully. I can't imagine ever having to be put in that position. I would, without hesitation, give my life for either of my sons, but this would be much more difficult. I believe that if we truly have faith in our great God, then we should take what he has given us. It may not be an ideal situation, but if God's plan is for the mother to die giving birth, then who are we to come in the way of that? Present day, I believe that we rely too much on ourselves and others rather than put our trust in God. He does know what He is doing, after all!
-Brenda Thompson
3.21.2011 | 4:57pm
Shyloh Furnace says:
Thank you for this article! I found it to be an inspiring read! The way I view these things is our choices are between us and god not us and the rest of the world. Why is it the church's problem that she decided to save her own life? Just like is it any of yours or the churches business how I take care of my furnace, no not really. Any choice she makes doesn't affect the church but, they are basically telling her that her choice severed her faith in god. Last time I checked, that is not their decision to make.
