Irish Woman Dies When Denied Abortion

[Quiddity]

This isn't making sense. You're making a distinction between terminating the pregnancy and the fetus. How would you terminate the pregnancy in this situation without terminating the fetus. Standard procedure would be a D&C. That would be terminating the fetus.

In an ectopic pregnancy, they dodge this by removing the fallopian tube, NOT by terminating the fetus. It would be far safer to induce a medical abortion, but that is not allowed by Catholic doctrine.

You keep saying it is possible without actually showing HOW. Standard medical procedure would violate doctrine.

I'll talk to you but you need to tone down the condescending tone or I'll just continue to ignore you. I don't mind talking to you but I do invest quite a bit of time in understanding my own faith and I'd appreciate a little more respect.

Are you asking for details? How would I know that? I'm no doctor; that's why I quoted a doctor that says it can be done.

I suspect it occurs in the process of the D&C. Whereby they are able to remove the fetus fairly in tact and then continue to clean the rest of it out.

EDIT: Obviously, the fetus doesn't survive the procedure. The difference is the doctor didn't directly do anything to the fetus.

 

[Drolefille]

I'll talk to you but you need to tone down the condescending tone or I'll just continue to ignore you. I don't mind talking to you but I do invest quite a bit of time in understanding my own faith and I'd appreciate a little more respect.

Are you asking for details? How would I know that? I'm no doctor; that's why I quoted a doctor that says it can be done.

I suspect it occurs in the process of the D&C. Whereby they are able to remove the fetus fairly in tact and then continue to clean the rest of it out.

EDIT: Obviously, the fetus doesn't survive the procedure. The difference is the doctor didn't directly do anything to the fetus.

You are stating incorrect facts about Catholic doctrine and failing to respond when it is pointed out to you. Your personal beliefs may differ from doctrine, but what you are presenting is false. I am not derisive of your beliefs but of your false presentation of them and unwillingness to admit error. Instead you avoid questions and demand sources - and then ignore them.

If you do not know that it is possible, you should stop stating that it is.

Catholic teaching would not permit a "fairly intact" fetus. As long as there is a fetal heartbeat, you cannot perform a D&C:

WIKI: The first step in a D&C is to dilate the cervix, usually done a few hours before the surgery. The woman is usually put under general anesthesia before the procedure begins. A curette, a metal rod with a handle on one end and a sharp loop on the other, is inserted into the uterus through the dilated cervix. The curette is used to gently scrape the lining of the uterus and remove the tissue in the uterus. This tissue is examined for completeness (in the case of abortion or miscarriage treatment) or pathologically for abnormalities (in the case of treatment for abnormal bleeding).
...

However, some sources use the term D&C to refer more generally to any procedure that involves the processes of dilation and removal of uterine contents, which includes the more common suction curettage procedures of manual and electric vacuum aspiration.[3]

Any type of D&C would violate doctrine as it would "kill" the fetus that still has a heartbeat. Now, medical abortificants like misoprostol and mifepristone can also work, but same problem with Catholic doctrine.

A D&C directly impacts the fetus, with a sharp pointy tool and/or a vacuum.
The only way to arrive at what you suggest would be a hysterectomy but one would have to know that there was infection before it threatened her life which would invalidate the double effect doctrine.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches. See the similar situation I linked regarding the woman in the US. She would have died without an abortion, but the Catholic hierarchy found it an unacceptable. The Catholic Church is not ok with allowing termination of the fetus to save the life of the mother, full stop. I personally think the double effect doctrine is junk philosophy, but within that worldview, what happened to this woman was acceptable.

These are facts, I've cited sources on the double effect doctrine and you can see it in the reactions of the church to the similar American case. What more do you want?

 

[Quiddity]

You are stating incorrect facts about Catholic doctrine and failing to respond when it is pointed out to you. Your personal beliefs may differ from doctrine, but what you are presenting is false. I am not derisive of your beliefs but of your false presentation of them and unwillingness to admit error. Instead you avoid questions and demand sources - and then ignore them.

If you do not know that it is possible, you should stop stating that it is.

Catholic teaching would not permit a "fairly intact" fetus. As long as there is a fetal heartbeat, you cannot perform a D&C: Any type of D&C would violate doctrine as it would "kill" the fetus that still has a heartbeat. Now, medical abortificants like misoprostol and mifepristone can also work, but same problem with Catholic doctrine.

A D&C directly impacts the fetus, with a sharp pointy tool and/or a vacuum.
The only way to arrive at what you suggest would be a hysterectomy but one would have to know that there was infection before it threatened her life which would invalidate the double effect doctrine.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches. See the similar situation I linked regarding the woman in the US. She would have died without an abortion, but the Catholic hierarchy found it an unacceptable. The Catholic Church is not ok with allowing termination of the fetus to save the life of the mother, full stop. I personally think the double effect doctrine is junk philosophy, but within that worldview, what happened to this woman was acceptable.

These are facts, I've cited sources on the double effect doctrine and you can see it in the reactions of the church to the similar American case. What more do you want?

How do you read this:

".....it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby."

Why would a doctor say something like this if termination of the fetus was a given?

 

[Drolefille]

How do you read this:

".....it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby."

Why would a doctor say something like this if termination of the fetus was a given?

Fallopian tube removal, hysterectomies and sometimes inducing "delivery" of a non-viable fetus are all options.
The first is an non-issue in this case, the second would have required acting prior to the life-threatening situation and the latter doesn't work when the body is already miscarrying. Again you ask questions without giving any answers, do you understand why I find it incredibly frustrating that you misrepresent your own doctrine? Additionally citing Irish medical practice is not the same as citing Catholic doctrine however much the latter influences the former.

Again, see the situation in the US. There was no way the fetus could survive, it was too small to deliver - like finding an eraser in a grapefruit is how it was described - and was not an ectopic pregnancy. She was dying.

You're taking a general statement and insisting that it must apply to this situation. The problem is that THIS situation - based on the evidence we have now - as well as the American woman whose life was saved by an abortion would not have been solved by any method of "terminating the pregnancy without terminating the fetus."