Bishop says AZ hospital no longer 'Catholic'

[Anonymous]

I saw this in the Washington Post and then googled for more information. Some time last year, a woman with pulmonary hypertension learned she was pregnant. Pulmonary hypertension carries a significant risk of mortality and because of the severity of the woman's case, she had a 50% change of dying. Some time later, she was admitted to the hospital because of worsening conditions and after extensive consultation with other doctors/specialists, etc. She was informed the risk of dying was close to 100%. There were extensive discussions with doctors, the hospital's ethics panel, the hospital's parent company (Catholic Healthcare West), the patient and her family. They agreed there was no way to save the life of the mother and the baby, they therefore chose to save the life they could - the mother's. The pregnancy was terminated. Bishop Thomas J Olmsted saw things differently saying the mother had a disease that needed to be treated and rather than treating the disease the hospital decided that a healthy 11 week baby should be killed. The hospital, its ethics panel and its parent company stand by the decision.

http://www.stjosephs-phx.org/stellent/groups/public/@xinternet_con_sjh/documents/webcontent/212144.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123103493.html

[Anonymous]

I heard about this on the radio. It's sad that the decision came down to her or the baby. They couldn't just let her die. I understand the Catholic church has rules to follow, but not to the extent of letting them both die on principles. That's asinine. They don't provide that much to the hospital, so this is not a big deal in reality. In principle, they've harmed their cause.

[Anonymous]

I am just about as pro-life as you can get w/o being wacky. I had a baby as a teen under most difficult circumstances, etc (baby was adopted). I have worked with young pg mothers in need, I pray for for moms in crisis and the unborn and it is a major factor in choosing my candidates. However, as I understand the circumstances, the best medical judgment of many, if not all, concluded that the mother would die during the pregnancy before the baby would be able to survive, thus both would die. I think this would be one of the few circumstances I can think of in which abortion is morally justifiable. Now, do I think the mom has some explaining to do re: why she even remained fertile considering the dire consequences of pregnancy? Oh, yes. But there is no reason for mom to die if baby cannot be saved. Morally, it would trickier for me if baby was able to reach age of survival, b/c then it may be an either/or scenario. But this seems very clear cut to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am just about as pro-life as you can get w/o being wacky. I had a baby as a teen under most difficult circumstances, etc (baby was adopted). I have worked with young pg mothers in need, I pray for for moms in crisis and the unborn and it is a major factor in choosing my candidates. However, as I understand the circumstances, the best medical judgment of many, if not all, concluded that the mother would die during the pregnancy before the baby would be able to survive, thus both would die. I think this would be one of the few circumstances I can think of in which abortion is morally justifiable. Now, do I think the mom has some explaining to do re: why she even remained fertile considering the dire consequences of pregnancy? Oh, yes. But there is no reason for mom to die if baby cannot be saved. Morally, it would trickier for me if baby was able to reach age of survival, b/c then it may be an either/or scenario. But this seems very clear cut to me.

Oh, and I'm Catholic and I think this Bishop was wrong, assuming the facts of the case are being accurately reported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am just about as pro-life as you can get w/o being wacky. I had a baby as a teen under most difficult circumstances, etc (baby was adopted). I have worked with young pg mothers in need, I pray for for moms in crisis and the unborn and it is a major factor in choosing my candidates. However, as I understand the circumstances, the best medical judgment of many, if not all, concluded that the mother would die during the pregnancy before the baby would be able to survive, thus both would die. I think this would be one of the few circumstances I can think of in which abortion is morally justifiable. Now, do I think the mom has some explaining to do re: why she even remained fertile considering the dire consequences of pregnancy? Oh, yes. But there is no reason for mom to die if baby cannot be saved. Morally, it would trickier for me if baby was able to reach age of survival, b/c then it may be an either/or scenario. But this seems very clear cut to me.

I am very struck by your question given that you are so pro-life/anti-choice. (I'm also assuming that you are a practicing Catholic, but if I'm wrong about that, I'm further guessing that you are religious on some way.)

If she is a practicing Catholic, wouldn't she have remained fertile because that is what Catholic teaching requires of her? How could she have chosen infertility (via birth control or tubal ligation) in the face of Catholic teachings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just about as pro-life as you can get w/o being wacky. I had a baby as a teen under most difficult circumstances, etc (baby was adopted). I have worked with young pg mothers in need, I pray for for moms in crisis and the unborn and it is a major factor in choosing my candidates. However, as I understand the circumstances, the best medical judgment of many, if not all, concluded that the mother would die during the pregnancy before the baby would be able to survive, thus both would die. I think this would be one of the few circumstances I can think of in which abortion is morally justifiable. Now, do I think the mom has some explaining to do re: why she even remained fertile considering the dire consequences of pregnancy? Oh, yes. But there is no reason for mom to die if baby cannot be saved. Morally, it would trickier for me if baby was able to reach age of survival, b/c then it may be an either/or scenario. But this seems very clear cut to me.

I am very struck by your question given that you are so pro-life/anti-choice. (I'm also assuming that you are a practicing Catholic, but if I'm wrong about that, I'm further guessing that you are religious on some way.)

If she is a practicing Catholic, wouldn't she have remained fertile because that is what Catholic teaching requires of her? How could she have chosen infertility (via birth control or tubal ligation) in the face of Catholic teachings?

I am not that poster, but the Pew Forum polls say that over three quarters of Catholics believe that you can disobey the church's position on contraceptives and still be a good catholic.

[Anonymous]

I should have qualified this as American Catholics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just about as pro-life as you can get w/o being wacky. I had a baby as a teen under most difficult circumstances, etc (baby was adopted). I have worked with young pg mothers in need, I pray for for moms in crisis and the unborn and it is a major factor in choosing my candidates. However, as I understand the circumstances, the best medical judgment of many, if not all, concluded that the mother would die during the pregnancy before the baby would be able to survive, thus both would die. I think this would be one of the few circumstances I can think of in which abortion is morally justifiable. Now, do I think the mom has some explaining to do re: why she even remained fertile considering the dire consequences of pregnancy? Oh, yes. But there is no reason for mom to die if baby cannot be saved. Morally, it would trickier for me if baby was able to reach age of survival, b/c then it may be an either/or scenario. But this seems very clear cut to me.

I am very struck by your question given that you are so pro-life/anti-choice. (I'm also assuming that you are a practicing Catholic, but if I'm wrong about that, I'm further guessing that you are religious on some way.)

If she is a practicing Catholic, wouldn't she have remained fertile because that is what Catholic teaching requires of her? How could she have chosen infertility (via birth control or tubal ligation) in the face of Catholic teachings?

That's right. So the real answer is that the Catholic Church could not give more two shits about women. That's what it's all about. It's a bunch of old fart men in "leadership" who have the audacity to think they have anything to say about women and their bodies and contraception, even in this circumstance. In this case, if she had tried to get her tubes tied, they would have refused. I have a friend who went to this hospital a year ago to give birth to an "oops" late-in-life baby. The pregnancy was incredibly difficult, she developed preeclamcia (sp?) and when they delivered a dangerously, almost-died premature baby, the hospital refused to tie her tubes because it's not morally acceptable.
So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. The Catholic church sucks.
Signed, 12 years of catholic school and will never step foot in a catholic church ever again except for a wedding, and even then I hate every second of it.

[Anonymous]

F-ing Catholic Church. What a hypocrisy! I'm glad I left.

[Anonymous]

I think it is fine for Catholic hospitals to have a policy that they don't do abortions ever. If you want an abortion, regardless of your reason, go to a non-Catholic hospital. How freaking hard is that? The Catholic Church's stance on abortion is unwavering and completely consistent - they don't kill babies. End of story. Are there cases, such as this one, where that seems ridiculously harsh, of course there are. But they can't just change their stance for the tough cases. Any more than a morally pro-choice abortion doctor could refuse to do an abortion for say, a nineteen weeks pregant woman who is wealthy and on her seventh abortion. I respect the right of pro-choice folks to be ok with an abortion under any circumstances, and I respect the right of the Catholic Church to refuse to fund or support any abortions, under any circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is fine for Catholic hospitals to have a policy that they don't do abortions ever. If you want an abortion, regardless of your reason, go to a non-Catholic hospital. How freaking hard is that? The Catholic Church's stance on abortion is unwavering and completely consistent - they don't kill babies. End of story. Are there cases, such as this one, where that seems ridiculously harsh, of course there are. But they can't just change their stance for the tough cases. Any more than a morally pro-choice abortion doctor could refuse to do an abortion for say, a nineteen weeks pregant woman who is wealthy and on her seventh abortion. I respect the right of pro-choice folks to be ok with an abortion under any circumstances, and I respect the right of the Catholic Church to refuse to fund or support any abortions, under any circumstances.

Why do you believe that neither side could navigate the grey areas? The ability to see beyond black and white to moral complexity strengthens arguments. It is blind adherence in the face of even the most extreme circumstances that makes me question the validity of someone's position. I am personally pro-life, politically pro-choice (meaning I can only decide for my body and my life). I see no reason why the abortion doctor in your example couldn't say no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am just about as pro-life as you can get w/o being wacky. I had a baby as a teen under most difficult circumstances, etc (baby was adopted). I have worked with young pg mothers in need, I pray for for moms in crisis and the unborn and it is a major factor in choosing my candidates. However, as I understand the circumstances, the best medical judgment of many, if not all, concluded that the mother would die during the pregnancy before the baby would be able to survive, thus both would die. I think this would be one of the few circumstances I can think of in which abortion is morally justifiable. Now, do I think the mom has some explaining to do re: why she even remained fertile considering the dire consequences of pregnancy? Oh, yes. But there is no reason for mom to die if baby cannot be saved. Morally, it would trickier for me if baby was able to reach age of survival, b/c then it may be an either/or scenario. But this seems very clear cut to me.

If abortion is morally wrong then it is morally wrong in all circumstances. Pro-lifers are such hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just about as pro-life as you can get w/o being wacky. I had a baby as a teen under most difficult circumstances, etc (baby was adopted). I have worked with young pg mothers in need, I pray for for moms in crisis and the unborn and it is a major factor in choosing my candidates. However, as I understand the circumstances, the best medical judgment of many, if not all, concluded that the mother would die during the pregnancy before the baby would be able to survive, thus both would die. I think this would be one of the few circumstances I can think of in which abortion is morally justifiable. Now, do I think the mom has some explaining to do re: why she even remained fertile considering the dire consequences of pregnancy? Oh, yes. But there is no reason for mom to die if baby cannot be saved. Morally, it would trickier for me if baby was able to reach age of survival, b/c then it may be an either/or scenario. But this seems very clear cut to me.

I am very struck by your question given that you are so pro-life/anti-choice. (I'm also assuming that you are a practicing Catholic, but if I'm wrong about that, I'm further guessing that you are religious on some way.)

If she is a practicing Catholic, wouldn't she have remained fertile because that is what Catholic teaching requires of her? How could she have chosen infertility (via birth control or tubal ligation) in the face of Catholic teachings?

I am not that poster, but the Pew Forum polls say that over three quarters of Catholics believe that you can disobey the church's position on contraceptives and still be a good catholic.

Agreed, but the Pew Forum polls also say that most American Catholics are pro-Choice (to greater and lesser degrees), which the PP is not. Hence my being perplexed at her comment.

[Anonymous]

She could have practiced natural family planning which is sanctioned by the catholic church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is fine for Catholic hospitals to have a policy that they don't do abortions ever. If you want an abortion, regardless of your reason, go to a non-Catholic hospital. How freaking hard is that? The Catholic Church's stance on abortion is unwavering and completely consistent - they don't kill babies. End of story. Are there cases, such as this one, where that seems ridiculously harsh, of course there are. But they can't just change their stance for the tough cases. Any more than a morally pro-choice abortion doctor could refuse to do an abortion for say, a nineteen weeks pregant woman who is wealthy and on her seventh abortion. I respect the right of pro-choice folks to be ok with an abortion under any circumstances, and I respect the right of the Catholic Church to refuse to fund or support any abortions, under any circumstances.

Doctors and medical personnel in the United States must follow certain ethics, the first and most obvious for doctors being "do no harm" and that means to your actual patient. In this situation, what you are suggesting is that sure, she should have gone to another hospital, no problem. But that lets doctors who took a damn oath off the hook. If doctors can't be doctors first, they have absolutely no business taking that oath and practicing medicine under the rules established by the AMA. If they don't like the way doctors practice in this country, they can go somewhere else. Perhaps the Vatican has an opening. But they can't practice here.