I would love to know what options hadn’t been considered in this somewhat famous case of a nine-year-old rape victim pregnant with twins. I mean, I’m sure everyone involved knew that the alternative was letting a nine-year-old bring two fetuses to term (or at least attempt to), but beyond that I’m just not sure what could have been brought to the discussion.
Gee, I know who I’m going to listen to! Why, it’s the sanctimonious anti-choicer who thinks a woman’s life is salvageable only if she’s a life support system for a fetus.
Funny how you’re eager to grant everybody but the woman in the case that very same humanity. Lump of cells? Here’s your social security number, your passport, your w2. Female? Nah.
Maybe because the only acceptable outcome for you is the fetus’ continued existence, whatever it costs the woman. Tell me, are you just okay with killing women? Or do you realize that in this case the fetus would have died too?
And you’re desperately grasping at straws to find excuses to continue that pregnancy.
Your persistence in granting actual life to the fetuses while shrugging it away for women is striking. And pretty disgusting. I hope to God you don’t have daughters.
I remember hearing about this case on NPR. Apparently the reason that it came before the director or administrator of the hospital was because the doctors could find no way around an abortion to save the woman’s life and needed her to make the call to allow them to perform it.
Furthermore, the last part of your post really, really disturbs me for many reasons. And for what it’s worth, having a child in a Catholic hospital isn’t security that they won’t be performing surgery that results in the termination of a pregnancy. My surgery was performed at one of the largest Catholic hospitals in the U.S. Every hospital has different policies - you might want to check yours if that’s a concern.
Agreed.
And the Catholic church thinks a nine-year-old girl who has been raped is no longer an “innocent child”? Ugh.
Cite?
Or let me put it another way - I’ve produced multiple statements and numerous citations from actual doctors that this was the necessary procedure.
You’ve produced absolutely nothing to back up your claims about your supposed recollections.
You might be mistaken. I think your lying.
The only one in damage control mode here is you.
The doctors have nothing to apologize for.
I put a lot of energy into finding citations for my posts. It pisses me off that you ignore everything I wrote and blather on about your vague memories of the event as if they were same thing as actual facts.
Again - I’m bringing the facts. You’re bringing the handwaving.
The fact that I can do it without getting the vapors over a simple piece of Anglo-Saxon makes me the grown-up here.
In short, go clutch your pearls somewhere else.
You’ve sure got that hand-washing tactic down, don’t you, Pilate?
I’ve cited repeated where the Bishop rebuked her, publicly and privately. The Bishop’s the one who dragged this all out to the newspapers.
Again:
My citations > your vague recollections.
I believe you are referring to the distinction of Latae or Ferendae Sententiae
Laetae excommunication is the type where someone is excommunicated by the act of doing something forbidden (okaying an abortion, for instance. Ferendae sententiae is where someone (a bishop or other official) performs an excommunication ceremony.
Here’s the thing -
- Every one of my cites specifically said that Bishop Olmsted declared that Sister Margaret was excommunicate because of her act - that is she was laetae excommunicated.
So your insistence on this distinction is not news to us.
- Unlike you, I and the many, many people who wrote those cites, do not see the Bishop’s actions in rebuking Sister Margaret and making announcements about her state of excommunication to the newspapers, as the irrelevant remarks of a casual bystander.
It’s clear that by his public remarks & actions - his very own words, which I’ve repeated - Bishop Olmsted was attempting to shame Sister Margaret, pressure the hospital into follow his orders, and finally, convince Catholics that they should be wary of the hospital.
Cite?
Because I have the actual doctors and hospital saying this was necessary. You’ve got nothing but your imagination.
Cite that the hospital didn’t consider all the options?
Cite that the hospital “hid” anything?
Cite that the Bishop deserves to have personal accesses to all the medical files of the hospital patients and final approval on their treatment?
Because I got multiple cites of the doctors and hospital staff themselves saying this was 100% necessary.
The hospital didn’t release his letter. He himself released a statement to the press, followed up by statements from the Dioceses head of Medical Ethics, Father Ehrich. Go read my cites, since I’m not going to bother to repeat them for a third time.
He (and you) have no one to blame but themselves for looking bad here.
-
It -wasn’t- made in a vacuum, as I said (and repeatedly cited) last time. There was a whole ethics committee involved, which is how Sister Margaret got dragged into this mess.
-
This right here is why I said that women should avoid Catholic hospitals - because medical decisions have to involve non-medical personnel for religious reasons.
Again - the doctors don’t have to apologize to anyone here. They’re not under investigation. They did what they did for the good of their patient. The Bishop can’t threaten them. They weren’t punished.
Well, the Bishop can try to threaten them, I guess, which is what he did by threatening to withdraw Catholic endorsement for the hospital unless they would promise to never do that again, but the doctors and the hospital told him to get lost.
Also, you know what? No one forced the doctors to perform the abortion. If they thought it was wrong, they would have just refused to do it in the first place. Pretending like the doctors know they got caught doing something wrong, and therefor are issuing ass-covering statements, is just you making things up.
So, to recap:
-
You attempts to insist there were other options is nothing but you desperately trying to whitewash this.
-
You attempts to paint the doctor & hospital statements as being self-serving are completely false.
-
Stop making stuff up and expecting other people to buy into it.
My citations are more worthwhile than your vague unsubstantiated memories. Especially since you can’t seem to remember cites and paragraphs from the actual post to which you’re responding.
I’m fine here. In fact, I think I’ve pretty much said all I need to say on this topic. If I were to start another thread on the subject, I’d do it in GD, where your complete lack of citations would be an even bigger disadvantage to you.
I think you’re lying based on what you’ve said in this thread and the way you seem to just ignore the actual words of my citations and quotes. I think it’s obvious that you’re just desperate to make the Catholic church look good here, so you’ll ignore things like the actual words the Bishop said and make up a bunch of stuff in order to pretend the doctors are the bad guys.
My personal relationship with you didn’t factor in my assessment that you were lying. But on reflection, it’s possible that you’re not lying - you’re just desperate.
If you have actual evidence of a pattern of past practice, I might concede the point (depending on the evidence, of course.) But you don’t. And the Bishop himself never refers to past practices in his quoted statements.
That means it’s not context, it’s just something you made up. ie: misdirection.
Cite that other options weren’t considered?
Cite that there are other options that were appropriate?
Cite that the doctors & the hospital ethics committee rushed to judgment on this?
Dude. I’m quoting an actual Bishop, his actual words, which he has released, himself, to the press, in person. This is all actually happened. This is a real event.
I don’t care if you find five random priests to come here and say, “well, you know, Church doctrine says …”
I’m talking about a real life event.
Bishop Olmsted, a real live Bishop - an actual, not-make-believe person - has said, repeatedly, that the life-saving procedure of an abortion, was wrong and should not have been performed.
Unless you call up Bishop Olmsted’s boss and get him to issue a press statement saying that Bishop Olmsted went a little overboard and abortion’s ok if there’s absolutely no other choice
Otherwise, don’t waste our time.
About the Bishop withdrawing Catholic certification? Ok.
Cite that there were other options?
Cite that they weren’t investigated?
-
If this is the “other issues” you are referring to regarding the Bishop’s handling of Sister Margarete’s case, keep in mind that the contrception factors came up months after the Bishop started throwing his weight around and issueing press releases and announcing excommunications solely on the original abortion.
-
The hospital itself didn’t even perform the contraception/sterilization issue, they actually did that through a referral to a third party. The Bishop was trying to pressure them into not even giving referrals.
-
These issues are medical issues - they absolutely belong in any hosptial that’s dedicated to serving the medical needs of it’s patients.
You do know that there’s a whole host of things that can go wrong with a women’s reproductive process and that women die of this stuff without medical intervention, right? Giving birth is a dangerous procedure.
- Furthermore, these issues are mandated by law to be addressed by any hospital which received Medicaid. (Or Medicare. I forget which. It’s in that Seattle Times link above.)
The fact that you and the Bishop think that the hospital should limit its medical services because of religious rules is, frankly, disgusting.
This is a thread about people using religious arguments to limit healthcare options for women. A real life example of a real life Bishop attempting to do just that, is, indeed, relevant to this discussion.
Calling the Bishop a menace is just a statement of fact based on his words and actions.
Calling the Bishop a fucking menace is me expressing my anger at his behavior.
A church should not get to decide what is or is not a medical situation. A church basis its rules on religious belief - not medical science. “Catholic doctrine” is not relevant to what is or is not healthcare.
And, well, that’s sort of what I said, wasn’t it? That women in the dioceses of Phoenix should avoid Catholic hospitals because they will be limited in their healthcare options to things approved by non-medical people.
Women, Catholic women included, should take their medical advice from actual doctors, not random non-medical institutions and non-medical individuals - who, it must be pointed out, never have to personally deal with the ramifications of their teachings or of being pregnant (or even just having that anatomy.)
Every doctor handles both life & death situations. It’s all part of the job - it’s the same job, really. The process used in abortion is the same as the process used when a child is stillborn or sometimes even when a child is being delivered.
It doesn’t matter which you choose - abortion, stillborn, childbirth. All three options are potentially tragedies. And then again, all three options might be grounds for joy. But the only one who can say is the woman who experiences it.
Treatment of pulmonary hypertension in pregnancy:
Pre-term delivery at 32 weeks-> post partum maternal death
cite:Primary pulmonary hypertension in pregnancy; a role for novel vasodilators | BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia | Oxford Academic
Drugs that may be dangerous to the foetus-> TWO successful recorded outcomes.
cite:Treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension in pregnancy | American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy | Oxford Academic
Four pregnant women with PH treated. 3 survived and had successful pregnancies. 1 died.
cite:http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/1999/04000/pulmonary_hypertension_in_pregnancy__treatment.5.aspx
Three pregnant women with PH treated- two died.
cite:http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/1999/04000/pulmonary_hypertension_in_pregnancy__treatment.5.aspx
Remember, people tend to publish SUCCESSFUL case studies, to say “hey, we tried this and it worked, do this!”
The statistics usually quoted are a 30-50% maternal mortality rate for PH. PH deteriorates during pregnancy as greater strain is put on the heart and lungs as the pregnancy progresses. For a woman who was symptomatic and unwell at 11 weeks (1/4 of the way into a pregnancy) the mortality rate could indeed approach 100%, and she may well have died long before the foetus reached viability.
Now, personally I don’t think it matters if the risk was 30%, 50% or 100%, but there you go.
Where are the Jewish maternity hospitals- can I have my high risk pregnancy there please? I’d prefer that abortion be recommended to preserve my life in these situations.
I <3 Merneith.
And Irishgirl.
Didn’t the Catholic Church excommunicate everyone in that case with the exception of the rapist who impregnated that child?
Church Doctrine? CHURCH DOCTRINE??? What the hell does that have to do with anything? This situation was a serious medical issue. It’s not at all like your weekly playing dress-up; with the pointy hats, burning incense and saying secret codes in Latin make-believe shit. You know that right?
Sure, you have every right to be a Catholic and play your funny games on Sundays. Most children play thought games involving magic and fantasy and have imaginary friends too. But if those games ever cause real world problems–if they hurt someone–then responsible adults immediately call a stop to them. You know this, right?
And I know, you probably take your Eat The Body, Drink Some Blood, Bow to the Pedophile, You’re It! game very, very, seriously and likely resent my calling it out for what it is. That’s fine too. Resent away. Just make sure that you never let your imaginary world interfere with anyone else’s life. The same thing goes for the Pope and all of the rest of you Papists.
I know this is a lame cite but relatives of mine say this was pretty much the case in Montreal, Quebec, at least in the 1950s and 60s. Catholic women would find excuses to give birth at the Jewish General because they knew that if there were complications at a Catholic hospital the doctors would opt to save the baby, even if it was just so it could live long enough to be baptized before dying.
Beniamino, you are looking really bad here, and if you are attempting to salvage some measure of respect for the Catholic Church, you are only smearing it worse, because we have met another person who tries to defend it with weasel words and outright obfuscation, if not lying.
I’ll say this for Bishop Sobrinho: at least he’s consistent. Either abortion is murder, or it isn’t, regardless of whether rape and incest are involved. I happen to believe it isn’t, and the weight of authority has my back here, but I have more respect for those who want to bar abortion in all cases (except to save the life of the mother, for obvious reasons) than for those who want to ban it unless the pregnancy is icky.
ETA: I guess an argument could be made that abortion isn’t murder, but is still wrong, but if so I’ve yet to hear it.
I find the Church officials’ actions in these cases to be totally indefensible.
But must you couch your objections in language that suggests your objection to Roman Catholicism springs from the works of Ian Paisley or Jack Chick–rather than concern for womens’ rights?
I probably hold a very unpopular opinion on this issue, which is that it is murder, but sometimes that’s ok.
You know what’s really depressing? Some women who go to Catholic hospitals have completely unnecessary surgery. In un-ruptured ectopics, a secular hospital can give medication (basically the same stuff as RU-486 or whatever it’s called), to end the pregnancy without removing the tube. Catholic hospitals won’t even tell you the option exists.
The closest hospital to me is Catholic, though this is such an insanely liberal area no one would even think of it being a problem. (And it’s not an obvious name, either, just part of CHW). I was kind freaked out when I learned this, and told my husband if I’m having any pregnancy complications, we have to make the extra drive down to Stanford. I’d like the full compliment of modern medical options, thank you, and not someone else’s backwards religion.
I guess that would depend on what the sometimes is. IME, most anti-abortion folks agree with you.
As long as you’re driving down take the extra few minutes and drive past Stanford to El Camino Hospital. Great OB department, fantastic nurses.
I know what you mean. I was actually informed about the availability of the drug, but only because while my doctor is affiliated with the hospital and his offices are in the complex, his office is not in the hospital proper. The rules are different if you’re actually located in the hospital vs. in the complex but not part of the hospital. Unfortunately, the pregnancy was too far advanced to use it and internal bleeding had already started.
Finding out I was pregnant when I wasn’t expecting it was a shock. Finding out it was failing was worse. Finding out that it was failing and I was in danger of death was terrifying. I can’t imagine what I would’ve done had I been unable to receive care as quickly as I did because of someone else’s religious beliefs.
Me. I just sent a donation.
Hi there. Well, last week I said I’d check with a priest regarding the Catholic position on performing an abortion to save the life of the mother. It was my inclination that such a thing were permissible according to Church Law, and several of you, some more maturely than others, opined otherwise.
So, here’s my report:
The priest advised me that, to his knowledge, the Diocese of Pittsburgh had not taken a position regarding the particular incident in Arizona, as Bishops generally don’t second-guess other Bishops unless they’ve been privy to the same facts (good rule for judges too, btw). However, he did indicate that it is the policy of Catholic hospitals in the Diocese that, where there must be a choice between saving one life or none, as appeared to be the case in Arizona, doctors must always act to save that life.
Moreover, he recalled having seen a publication by a Professor of Theology at Marquette University (a Jesuit university) explaining why this is so. I thanked him for his time and, using my Google Fu, tracked down the article, which is a masterfully written theological investigation.
The upshot of the article is that, if you’re applying Catholic Theology and you arrive at an absurd result, you’re doing it wrong. Doctors at a Catholic hospital, perhaps the only ones faithfully applying the principle primum non nocere, must act to save both the lives of the mother and child in all cases. Where this cannot be done, the live of the mother must be saved. Here’s the link, which I’d urge you to read, as it sets forth the theology far better than I could, and her concluding paragraph:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/St.-Josephs-Hospital-Analysis.pdf
So, there you have it. If anybody has any Tradition or Magesterium on the issue, I’d be interested to read it.