I’m not going to have much to add here. I figured I’d add some speculations.
1. Abortion is typically an outpatient procedure. This isn’t South America. Catholic hospitals don’t need to create excuses for performing abortions. If a person wants to have an abortion in this country, there are facilities that will perform them, no questions asked. The fact that the person who had the abortion was inpatient and approval had to be sought by a committee should be sufficient evidence that immediate medical conditions required prompt action. “News” sources that speculate contrariwise are acting irresponsibly unless they have solid evidence. If they quote a doctor claiming such circumstances never present themselves and from that he renders judgment in a case he has not reviewed, the doctor is committing professional malfeasance.
2. Reading between the lines, the objection from the diocese seems to be the procedure chosen. In obstetrics, it isn’t unusual that an abortion will accomplish the same need as another procedure. These other procedures will result in the death of a fetus in pre-viability cases like the one being discussed. The consequences of performing other procedures instead of an abortion can be anywhere from introducing slightly greater risks to fertility and life to quite significant. Many medical professionals consider these alternative procedures to be a needless introduction of risk to the mother when the death of the child is already foreseen.
a) This is not a trivial area of Catholic moral theology. The difference between vigilantism and capital punishment aren’t trivial. Bishop Olmsted would be in very sure territory finding d&e to be intrinsically an abortion.
b) Catholic theology does not compel women to die. If the situation is as I understand it, a procedure would have been performed resulting in the death of the fetus. I do not wish to trivialize the increased risks such a procedure would have had. A Catholic ethical system is not the only one which claims the most efficient solution may not be the proper one.
3. People are going to have to get used to not evaluating every case under the principle of double effect. There are actions that by their very nature (intrinsically) are evil. People could also stop assuming that there is one and only one solution to any given problem. The real world is complex and more often than not filled with a multitude of choices with varying degrees of desirability.
4. Having said that, I could very well be wrong on some of these points. I’m quite confident that the debate as it has played out up until this point hasn’t been a very positive reflection on the Church.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In