A friend of my wife is about to find out whether her fetus is in her fallopian tube or not. If it is in the fallopian tube, there will be two options. One is a shot of a chemical that will remove the fetus. The other option is a surgery that removes the fallopian tube.
This friend is Catholic. She just told my wife that per Catholic teaching, if the pregnancy is in the fallopian tube, then she will have the tube removed. She says that the Church teaches that the chemical shot is wrong because it directly harms the fetus, while the tube removal is okay because it does not directly harm the fetus.
This is her business. It’s her body. But I’m just really really curious. Seriously, is this really the official teaching of the Catholic Church?
I was curious about this as well, this is what I found. At this link it says in part:
So it seems the church recognizes the issue but has no official stance. There’s lots of further discussion on the page about this, but I wasn’t THAT curious.
I found the same link, and I WAS that curious. The article goes on to say that most moralists hold the view that your friend cited - that MTX directly involves the fetus, where as tube removal is a measure to save the life of the mother that has the unfortunate side effect of ending the life of the fetus.
I find this interesting, having a Catholic mother who has lost both tubes to ectopics (the first being just about to rupture). I actualy had someone tell me that my mother should have gone ahead and died according to the church. (not true)
Given a choice myself between a shot and invasive surgery, I’d take the shot (assuming all other things being equal). But then, I’m a bad, wicked, naughty Catholic on birth control.
The logical outcome of having the tube removed is surely a reduction in fertility, is that really what the Catholic church is after ?
Either way is a form of medical intervention to save life, there are many drugs that are injected and considered to be medical treatment, this sounds insane.
The average women’s fertility is not impacted as badly as you might think by having one tube removed. I can’t find the numbers right now, but it’s not a 50% reduction like one might assume.
Having a partial tube removal and reconstruction leaves two intact tubes, but adds to the risk of future ectopics because of the presence of scar tissue that may impede the progress of a fertilized egg.
Obviously, having both tubes removed (after two ectopics) is a significat barrier to future fertility. Add to that the fact that the Catholic church also casts a jaundiced eye at the assisted reproductive measures (IVF) that could theoretically be employed to get around not having fallopian tubes.
As the link referenced above details, moralists within the church argue that there are two lives to consider - that of the mother and that of the unborn child. There is a choice of medical interventions to save the life of the mother - either injection with methotrexate or removal of all or a portion of the tube containing the ectopic pregnancy. Methotrexate injection is given specifically to cause the death of the embryo. Yes, it saves the mother’s live, but *directly * ends the child’s. Tubal removal also saves the mothers life, and the death of the child is considered an unfortunate but inevitable side effect.
Apparently, being unintentional in ending the life of the embryo is preferable to maintaining the woman’s full fertility. To moralists.