A follow-up to:
Following the previous post about Vision Forum’s plans to advance their thesis regarding surgical treatment for tubal pregnancy before confirmed death of an unborn baby as the ethical equivalent of elective abortion, several insightful questions have been presented in different areas around the blogosphere including the NLQ Forum. They are worth noting.
The discussion raised some interesting questions about the actual risk (morbidity and mortality) related to ectopic pregnancy as weighed against the chance of a non-tubal ectopic pregnancy producing a live birth. Refer to this HERE at Under Much Grace which includes some great diagrams and statistics from sources including the CDC and Lancet.
Most notably, ectopic pregnancy accounts for 6-9% of all maternal deaths in the US. Assuming that these statistics also apply to other developed countries and those countries that do not provide state-of-the-art care to their citizens, this translates to a rough single year death rate of 25,000 worldwide (in 2008 based on Lancet’s estimate) due to ectopic pregnancy.
And the odds of a baby from non-tubal ectopic pregnancy surviving the pregnancy? One in 60 million. That means that worldwide (assuming a general birthrate of 134 million annually for the past 30 years), only one such birth occurs every 6.7 years, based on a now current and somewhat stable global birth rate.
Vision Forum will laud one baby every 7 years while 25,000 mothers die in one year? Hmmm.
This information out of Lancet and from the CDC paints quite a different picture than Samaritan Ministry’s publications when they reproduced Vision Forum’s new dogma.(I think Vyckie’s karma ran over their dogma!)
Is it worth speaking out on behalf of women with ectopic pregnancy, even if it risks the downplay of the significance of the rare live births that result from viable ectopic pregnancies? What will the liberals say?
(I think that they will respect those who are trying to hold their own groups accountable. Liberals think we are hypocrites when we ignore our own problems while pointing out theirs! And they’re right to think so.)
From “dangermom”: What connection does the Schatz Family have to Vision Forum’s decree regarding ectopic pregnancy?
I believe that both issues point out Evangelical Christianity’s avoidant behavior regarding provocative issues that are not easily understood, are unpleasant, and might result in a loss of contributions from people who think it is unchristian to confront error. Rather than engage the serious natures of both these dilemmas, most ministries have completely ignored the matter. Rather than showing Christian compassion to what I am told is a fringe group that doesn’t equate to a “significant demographic,” suffering people who are precious to God are thrown away like so much inconvenient trash.
“Here’s the thing about the Schatz’s–they weren’t a crazy family. They were right there in the mainstream of QF, doing exactly what the Pearls’ book told them to do–to keep “switching” the defiant child until her will was broken and she submitted. They interpreted her cries as defiance, since she wasn’t “whimpering” like the Pearls tell you to expect. All their Christian friends liked them and considered Mrs. Schatz to be a gentle, kind, loving mother. . .
But since the Pearls’ advice is abusive and not Christian at all, a lot of children are severely harmed by it. And a few are going to die, until we get the word out there that it’s an awful book that should be thrown out and never followed. Lydia will not be the last victim, unless conservative Christians rise up and throw the Pearls out of their midst.
The real kicker about the Pearls and their ilk is that if you believe them, you–loving, well-socialized, reasonable you–will accidentally beat your child to death out of love and duty.”
Why is this decree such a big revelation?
This has been the unspoken and understood message within the ranks of the group from the beginning because birthing conveys spiritual blessing as if it were a sacrament.
Manipulative groups that use spiritually abusive tactics have two sets of rules: the Formal Doctrinal Statements and the “Unwritten, Understood Rules” that are conveyed through rhetoric, propaganda technique, and social pressure/proof. This example demonstrates the rare transposition of a provocative vaguely implied rule into a formal one. (Cultic groups generally avoid making direct and definitive statements.)
Is it every allowable to abort a pregnancy that is literally killing the mother because of conditions like HELLP Syndrome or unmanageable Pregnancy Induced Hypertension? Who cares for these women if they are rendered without mental function? Is Vision Forum going to pay for this care? Who pays to care for the NICU expenses for those babies who are barely viable?
“Even though they say it’s God’s will, they are actually getting to be the ones playing God with their wife’s life.”
How can Samaritan Ministries deny certain kinds of heathcare, apparently without accountability? Are they receiving funds from the government for “Faith Based Initiative” services? Are they not regulated by some outside organization?
Samaritan Ministries avoids accountability because they are classified as a religious ministry and enjoy the benefits of freedom of religion. Therefore, they are permitted to interpret ethics in any way they see fit without accountability to the government. Subscribers also basically sign their rights away after they are given informed consent about the policies which include the denial of any care believed to have resulted from sinful behavior. Their stringent requirements for qualification as a subscriber also include three services monthly (three Sundays out of every four). Could eating too much sugar be considered sin for a diabetic and coverage denied?
Vyckie Garrison reported HERE on the NLQ Forumthat she contacted Samaritan Ministries when pregnant after having already delivered three previous children via Cesarean Section. She was told that a hospital delivery would not be a covered expense, but that Samaritan Ministries would pay for a midwife to aid with a vaginal delivery at home. (After THREE previous C-sections?????) Do they think that uterine rupture is not a risk in such cases, or are they counting on the woman croaking? They aren’t that important anyway. Was the pregnancy some kind of pre-existing condition? If it was, why would they have then paid for a home birth, as this should have also been denied.
Could Vision Forum or Samaritan Ministries be cited for practicing medicine without a license?Could VF possibly be in violation of tax codes due to too much overlap between their for profit division (www.visionforum.com) and their not-for-profit arm (www.visionforumministries.org)? How do they get around suing fellow Christians? Where do they get their funding? Hasn’t anyone tried to hold them accountable before?
Many have discussed their anger and their sense of spiritual disillusionment ~ as the topic elicits deep feelings like survival guilt that mothers have after miscarriage, for pregnancy is always a deeply personal matter for any woman.
“I didn’t expect that they would try to make the world conform to their rigid doctrines but that is exactly what they are trying to do.”
All legitimate and astute questions!
Cynthia Mullen Kunsman, RN, BSN, MMin , ND www.UnderMuchGrace.com
(Discussing the phenomenon of Spiritual Abuse in Evangelical Churches)