CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - dogmatic theology
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 23rd January 2008, 08:57 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,590
Default

A prenatal born at 26 weeks has an 80% chance of dying.
A prenatal born at 28 weeks has an 80% chance of living.
During those two weeks a protein develops that acts as a surfacent (like soap) allowing the lungs to expand and contract.

The first trimester is 0 - 13 weeks; the second trimester is 14 - 26 weeks; the third trimester is 27 weeks to birth.

In the case of uterine cancer and a prenatal in the first trimester, if there is no way to save both mother and prenatal, the cancerous uterous can be removed, even though this indirectly kills the prenatal. This is in accord with the principle of double effect:

1. the act is not intrinsically evil; it is a medical procedure which directly removes a cancerous organ in order to save a life.
2. the intention is to perform a moral means (medical procedure) to acheive a moral end (saving the life of the mother)
3. the circumstances are such that the prenatal cannot be saved; the consequences include two effects, one intended good effect, saving the life of the mother; and one unintended bad effect, allowing the death of the prenatal.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 23rd January 2008, 08:59 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,590
Default

A different situation:

The mother is pregnant and also has some chronic ailment which will likely result in the death of both mother and prenatal if the pregnancy goes to term, but the only way to save the life of the mother is by a direct abortion.

In this case, one cannot perform a direct abortion, even to save the life of the mother, even if refraining from the direct abortion results in the deaths of both mother and child. Intrinsically evil acts are never justified, regardless of intent, circumstances, or consequences.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 23rd January 2008, 09:22 PM
garabandalg garabandalg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,657
Default Speaking of percentages....

A heretical liberal has an 80% chance of offending a religious conservative and, sadly, most so-called Catholics have an 80% chance of folding like a cheap suit when it suits their convenience, popularity, material situation or social standing, if not their personal moral facade.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 24th January 2008, 11:34 AM
VKallin VKallin is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North Port, Florida
Posts: 601
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
sweet basil and vkallin gave the correct answer as to what the mother can morally do. She waits until the child can be delivered safely, then receives treatment.

Now, what if she is in her first trimester, and it is clear that waiting will result in the cancer killing both mother and prenatal? What are her moral options and why?

It seems that she would have two options....she could do nothing and allow God's will to be done. Or she could accept treatment to save her own life. The child will be lost either way....which is apparently God's will also.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 24th January 2008, 11:48 AM
VKallin VKallin is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North Port, Florida
Posts: 601
Default A Moral Question

The Terry Schiavo case from Florida a few years back was a very interesting theological question for the Catholic Faith. Terry was in a vegitative state for many years and was being kept alive with perpetual medical intervention. Mercy killing and suicide are clearly against God's law, but I was taught that a person is not required to be kept alive indefinitely with extraordinary medical means. She was eventually starved to death when they removed her feeding tube....a decision made by her husband after many years of her suffering. Both the Federal government (an act of congress) and the executive and congressional government of Florida took action in this case. The question seemed to hinge on whether or not she had a "living will". I know that if it were me.......I would have wanted them to let me go. This was a very emotional issue and I knew many Catholics on both sides of this case. According to our faith.....what was the correct answer?????
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 24th January 2008, 01:17 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VKallin View Post
It seems that she would have two options....she could do nothing and allow God's will to be done. Or she could accept treatment to save her own life. The child will be lost either way....which is apparently God's will also.

In this case, she can accept a treatment for the cancer to save her life; it is a moral means to a moral end, and her intention in both the means and the end is good. The bad effect of the death of the prenatal is unavoidable, and so saving the live of the mother outweighs this bad effect (not because one life is better than the other, but because one life can be saved and the other cannot).
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 24th January 2008, 01:21 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VKallin View Post
The Terry Schiavo case from Florida a few years back was a very interesting theological question for the Catholic Faith. Terry was in a vegitative state for many years and was being kept alive with perpetual medical intervention. Mercy killing and suicide are clearly against God's law, but I was taught that a person is not required to be kept alive indefinitely with extraordinary medical means. She was eventually starved to death when they removed her feeding tube....a decision made by her husband after many years of her suffering. Both the Federal government (an act of congress) and the executive and congressional government of Florida took action in this case. The question seemed to hinge on whether or not she had a "living will". I know that if it were me.......I would have wanted them to let me go. This was a very emotional issue and I knew many Catholics on both sides of this case. According to our faith.....what was the correct answer?????

The Pope has ruled in this matter that food and water are never an extraordinary medical means; food and water are basic human needs. It was immoral to starve her to death.

The claim that she was in a 'vegetative state' was in my view a disingenuous excuse for this immoral act. She certainly had reduced mental capacity, but a prenatal goes from essentially zero mental capacity, to only the basic mental capacity of an infant at birth. We cannot kill a prenatal on the excuse of low mental capacity. It is absurd to use a term comparing a human being to a vegetable as an excuse for directly killing an innocent human being made in God's image.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 25th January 2008, 06:01 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,590
Default

this story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325458,00.html
is about a woman who had liver cancer and was 4 months pregnant. She decided to bring the prenatal to term, even though her own life would likely be lost (which it was). They delivered the child prematurely, then began cancer treatment, but it was too late.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 25th January 2008, 07:16 PM
Brother Brother is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
this story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325458,00.html
is about a woman who had liver cancer and was 4 months pregnant. She decided to bring the prenatal to term, even though her own life would likely be lost (which it was). They delivered the child prematurely, then began cancer treatment, but it was too late.

Well done by the mother (kudos to her, as some people say), she accomplished her mission.

Situations like this obviously saddens us because of the loss of a loved one (in this case, the mother) because we are going to miss that person in this world; but we have to remember that we are in this world temporarily, that mother actually began to LIVE. God called her.

My prayers and sentiments with the family. That child is going to be really proud of her mother.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 25th January 2008, 07:29 PM
Archangel Michael Archangel Michael is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 118
Default

That mother is a hero in my eyes.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.