My article in today’s LifeNews.com
Bishop Thomas Olmsted, of the Phoenix, Arizona Diocese took the extraordinary step last week of removing Saint Joseph Hospital’s Catholic status.
The measure comes after last May’s confrontation between Sister Margaret McBride, the hospital’s administrator who gave permission for an 11-week pregnant woman with a severe case of pulmonary hypertension to have an abortion, and Bishop Olmsted who notified her in private that her actions were formal cooperation in the child’s death, and therefore incurred a laetae sententiae (automatic) excommunication.
Much confusion swirls around this case, and needs to be cleared in the interest of defending the good name of a good bishop.
First, a recap of the initial controversy last May. Pulmonary hypertension is a gravely serious condition that is exacerbated by pregnancy. Testing done at Saint Joseph’s indicated a fairly advanced stage of the disease, and it was deemed that the 27 year-old mother of four would in all likelihood not make it to term with her pregnancy. Termination of the pregnancy was advocated as the means of saving the life of the mother. Thus, the ethical crossroads.
The moral guide for hospitals and healthcare institutions is spelled out in Ethical and Religious Directives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (ERD’s). Directives #45 and #47 both spell out the rules for dealing with a case such as this, and Bishop Olmsted, a Doctor of Canon Law, has made it clear that this case did not fall within the parameters of these directives and what is known as the Principle of Double Effect.
In essence the principle states that a lifesaving procedure that cannot be delayed, such as the removal of a cancerous uterus before the baby can be taken in a Cesarean section at viability (~25 weeks gestation), is permissible so long as the death of the baby is the indirect and unintended effect. The life-saving treatment and resolution of a disease with immediate lethal consequence if no treatment is rendered is the good effect. The unintended death of the baby is the bad, or second (double) effect.
Such circumstances are extremely rare, given how early a baby can be delivered before full term at 40 weeks. The mother’s life must be in immediate danger and the treatment of her disease, which would also result in the death of the baby, cannot be forestalled. The case at Saint Joseph’s did not rise to the level of Double-Effect, as the baby was the sole target of intervention.
While the assessment on the part of physicians was dire, no treatment of the disease was even attempted. There are several medications that can be employed to attempt a reduction in the severity of the disease, none of which appear to have been dispensed in this case. From that point on, the actions of the hospital and Sister McBride pointed toward more than an isolated and extreme case where the decision to abort could have been simply dismissed as one bad judgment call.
There are several hospitals within a three-mile radius of Saint Joseph’s, some mere blocks away, where this woman’s husband could have taken her for the recommended abortion. They were no more than ten minutes from any number of facilities that would have performed the abortion, if that was what the couple wanted. All reports of the incident indicate that at no point was the couple told that Saint Joseph’s does not target babies for death as a means of treating a disease. Again, no evidence has surfaced that the physicians attempted to treat her medically.
This is a critical distinction that separates Catholic healthcare from its secular counterparts. Many physicians resort to abortion as a defensive strategy to avoid potential litigation. Others have signed on to the eugenics agenda and aggressively promote abortion for Down Syndrome and other babies with trisomic disorders, spinal tube defects such as spina bifida and anencephaly, and a host of other imperfections.
Patients who seek Catholic healthcare do so because of the assurance that the facility and its clinicians adhere to the ERD’s. They do so because they seek the assurance that they will be told the truth and treated in accord with Catholic moral norms, and not railroaded down the disastrous path American medicine has decided to follow. The Phoenix case is an excellent example of what happens when rebels take charge and deceive their patients and the bishop.
At the time, I remarked to peers in medicine and to groups I was invited to address that there had to be much more to this story than meets the eye. No Catholic hospital faithful to the ERD’s and the Magisterium, within a stone’s throw of several other hospitals, makes such a decision, especially without consulting the local bishop. I opined, and was pilloried for it, that Sister McBride was presiding over a shadow healthcare system that was active in promoting an agenda that ran counter to the mission of the Church. Nobody commits first-degree murder as a first crime. No Catholic hospital administrator, especially a professed religious, signs off on such an abortion for the first time in the manner in which Sister McBride conducted herself.
There was an arrogance, an independent and defiant air about it that pointed to something deeper and darker, something that would eventually come to light.
This past week, Bishop Olmsted shared with the world the extent to which there has been a shadow system operating for over a quarter of a century, performing abortions, sterilizations, and dispensing all manner of contraception. Sister McBride, as it has now been revealed, is hardly the compassionate administrator who made a good-faith, though horrific decision.
In Part II, how Bishop Olmsted was lied to, lied about, what happens next in his courageous pushback against the rebellion within his healthcare system, and its implications nationally for Catholic healthcare.
Coming Home 
Excellent post. At the time this story broke, my wife (an RN for several years now) expressed skepticism regarding other treatment for the pulmonary hypertension. Yet there was absolutely zippo coverage of that facet of the story in the MSM. So either a fair number of health care professionals have willingly enlisted in the Culture of Death or the dissenting voices, such as your own, were silenced.
Perhaps its a bit of both.
It’s not surprising to see the bishop raked over the coals in the court of public opinion, I’ve a hunch we’ll see much more of that in coming years.
Thanks again.
Gerard,
Do you have any control over what kind of “Possibly related posts” are automatically generated?
The link to the article on “Catholic Bishops Deny the Existence of Irony, Ban Reiki” links to a viciously anti-Catholic blog.
Perhaps you can contact WordPress.com and see what can be done. Just suggesting.
Bob,
I need to pay Word Press $59 to ban ads. looks like I’ll have to split withnthe money as this is unconscionable
My sister died from PPH a decade ago +, so I was very interested in seeing information about what treatment (specific to this case) that these doctors could have tried without the treatments negatively effecting on the unborn child. Do you have information on them?
My sister could never have carried out a pregnancy. From the point of her diagnosis, she was dead within 4-months. I know treatments for PPH have advanced, but I also know pregnancy does complicate mother’s health situation greatly.
Also, are you suggesting that this mother would have been able to carry her child to a point in which Cesarean section would have been preformed?
What I have not seen covered in any report that I have read in Catholic blog sphere, secular press, or Catholic radio reports, etc., is the subject of married couples embracing abstinence when a spouse is ill with a health conditions that might become life threatening due to a pregnancy. This topic of continence within marriage just doesn’t get the spiritual light of day. I think its time has come and is long over due.
Thank you for posting this informative information.
Dr. Nadal, thank you!!
The ‘possibly related posts’ are not ads. They can be turned off in your dashboard. Relevant information is here in WordPress help.
Ric,
Thanks a million!!! DONE!!!!!! I’ll let you and Bob split the $60 🙂
[…] would recommend you read all of Dr. Nadal’s post along with subscribing to his fine blog if you don’t already do so. Permalink December 29, […]
I would like to hear a followup to Pml’s question as well.
Very busy day. I’ll post the answer to pml tonight.
Lots of questions remain unanswered. Like, how is it conceivable that the mother’s health was so fragile that an 11 wk pregnancy could throw her into cardiogenic shock? If she could decompensate so easily then it seems unlikely she has much of a life expectancy anyway- a few weeks? I t really seems unlikely to me that a long life of mothering is contingent on this emergency termination.
pml,
Reading more about this type of treatment for PIPH might help:
http://www.wisn.com/r/17994163/detail.html
Of course this is a serious, life threatening condition but its not necessarily a death sentence…at least for the mother, it always is for the baby if the mom is forced to abort, of course. Thing is, this treatment requires careful medical monitoring and most hospital administrators totally don’t see that as an option, no matter what the odds are, because of the high cost of care.
I’d like to hear what your source is for the claim “While the assessment on the part of physicians was dire, no treatment of the disease was even attempted.”
In the analysis provided by Commonweal (http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/St.-Josephs-Hospital-Analysis.pdf), it states that the woman had already been told several weeks before that her chances of surviving were only 50/50. She declined to have an abortion. It also says she had “a history of moderate but well-controlled pulmonary hypertension.”
I find it VERY hard to believe that a woman who had been controlling her PH and seemed committed to carrying her baby, even when told she would as likely die as live, wasn’t doing anything up to that point to treat her disease, and that she would have allowed doctors to jump to abortion as the first method of treatment.
Alexis,
You have a dilemma on your hands if you are defending Sister McBride and the staff at Saint Joseph’s. You can’t win this one.
When the story broke, the assertions by McBride’s defenders at St. Joe’s was that the woman presented with sudden and severe onset of PH, and that the recommendation was immediate termination. When presented with the suggestion that her husband could have been told that St. Joe’s doesn’t do abortions and that there were other hospitals within a few minute drive who were equipped to handle the PH and abortion, the response from Phoenix was that the woman’s condition was so unstable that the trip would have been fatal. In this version of the story, no medical treatment was proffered. The only “treatment” proffered was the direct targeting of the baby for death.
Now we have Commonweal claiming that her PH was well managed and that she was told early in the pregnancy that her chances of survival were 50/50. So, if you wish to accept that version as the truth, then you must admit that the physician (who had privileges at St. Joseph’s) needed to tell the mother that should her status take a precipitous decline, St. Joseph’s cannot do an abortion and that she needed to go to another medical center.
Staying with the Commonweal version of the story, the reason why she showed at St. Joe’s, and why the abortion was performed, was because abortion is an accepted practice there, as are sterilizations and contraception. Nobody thought to warn this woman off because they stood ready to abort the baby. While a rare etiology, the PH was but one of many that have led to the murder of the unborn in this viper’s nest. Other deaths were the result of a child being conceived in rape or incest, or for the “mental health” of the mother.
I’m sorry Alexis, but there have been different versions of the truth, and they get worse with every new twist.
The issue here is the ERD’s that were flagrantly violated time and again by an ethically and morally compromised staff who killed several babies before this case. That casts a pall over the veracity of their story, their diagnoses, and their recommended course of action. Their deceitfulness with the bishops over the 26 years of their shadow healthcare system says all about their philosophy and motives. A nun who can look a bishop in the eye and smile, knowing her complicity, rebellion, and deceit, is capable of looking a patient in the eye and doing the same. I applaud Bishop Olmsted’s courage and pastoral leadership.
The staff he carries, the shepherd’s crook (or croxier) was not only meant for helping to gather the flock, it is also for beating the wolves who would tear the sheep to pieces. I’d say he wielded his well this year.
Gerald, I’m not defending Sister McBride or the hospital (and I agree that overall, a Catholic hospital should not be providing contraception, sterilizations or abortions, except in Church-approved circumstances). I’m asking where you’ve gotten your version of events.
I think you’re jumping to conclusions with your assumption that the mother went to St. Joseph expecting or wanting to get an abortion. We have no idea if she went there with that intention whatsoever. She probably felt sick and was taken there because that’s where she’d received care before, the same reason just about anyone goes to any hospital.
Like I said, none of us have access to her medical records, so none of us know the complete story. In the end, all we can do is conjecture.
And for what it’s worth, if the hospital truly -has- been providing services contrary to Church teachings and lying about it, then the bishop made the right call. However, pegging it to THIS case has the unfortunate effect of making him (and the Church) look rather heartless.
Alexis,
Forgive me for misreading your original post. The version of events comes from the initial version as released by hospital administrators defending Sister McBride.
There is far more on the table here than conjecture. I urge you to click here to read Bishop Olmsted’s statement.
In the statement, he clearly indicates that he initially called Sister McBride into a private meeting to inform her that she had incurred an automatic excommunication. To be clear, such an excommunication is not handed down by the bishop, but is automatically incurred in the very act of formal cooperation. It can only be lifted by going to confession to a bishop. (Most bishops delegate this authority to their priests).
So here we have a bishop who lovingly brings McBride in for a private meeting and notifies her of the penalty she visited on herself and affords her the opportunity for reconciliation. Her response?
She ran out and to all the world played the martyr. Why? The Bishop’s statement gives us an indication. In recent weeks, St. Joseph’s administrators have come forward to reveal over a quarter of a century of abortions, sterilizations, and prescriptions for contraceptives of every kind. This is the system over which “Sister” McBride has presided. The case that brought this to light was just the tip of the iceberg. And that explains a great deal.
It explains how this woman’s physician didn’t warn the couple that the hospital would not do an abortion if the PH worsened.
It explains why McBride ran out and tried to portray Bishop Olmsted in such an ugly light.
It explains why the doctors didn’t tell the husand to take his wife a few blocks away if he wanted the abortion.
It explains why the recommendation was not for aggressive medical treatment of the PH, but for abortion.
Such recommendations, approval, and execution of abortion in a “Catholic” hospital grow out of soil that has been carefully cultivated by years of disregard for the Magisterium and the NCCB’s ERD’s. Bishop Olmsted’s statement reveals a world of vituperative disregard for charity decency, and obedience.
As for this case making the church look heartless, it is actually how the case has been skewed in the media presentation. A fair reading of the Bishop’s statement, coupled with McBride’s actions shows that we may well have had a baby who might have made it to 24 weeks, though we’ll never know. People who murder babies are adroit at lies and obfuscations to cover their tracks. The greatest casualties in this whole sordid affair have been (in order):
The baby
The parents
The truth
Bishop Olmsted
McBride? Her pride and vituperation leave her as pitiable as they make her contemptible.
Gerard, I’ve already read Olmsted’s statement. And I said above that I agreed with you that the hospital was not acting as a Catholic hospital should.
HOWEVER, I stand by my statement that Olmsted’s handling of the situation was appalling. Strip the hospital of its right to call itself “Catholic”? Sure. But don’t center it on THIS case if there are plenty of other cases.
There is no evidence anywhere that this baby could have made it to 24 weeks. From the information we have, the mother was admitted with “severe, life-threatening pulmonary hypertension,” “right heart failure,” and “cardiogenic shock.”
And what devout Catholic women are hearing from this case is that even if pregnancy will result in certain death for us AND our babies, we must shuffle off to the grave, unless we are “lucky” enough to have ectopic pregnancies (where the tubes can be removed) or cancerous uteruses (where the uterus can be removed). I’m not sure what the difference is between a healthy tube that happens to have a baby in it, and a healthy uterus that has a placenta in it that’s draining the life out of you, but apparently the former can licitly be removed while the latter can’t.
I am currently 12 weeks pregnant with my third child — just a little farther along than this mother in Arizona was. I would happily die for this baby, as I would for my other two children, if I knew it would keep them safe. And when I had several complications earlier in this pregnancy, I was positively TERRIFIED that we would lose this precious little one, who was at the time no bigger than a blueberry.
But I will not let myself die for a child who has NO chance at life without me. I will not make my husband lose a wife AND a child, and my sons lose a mother AND a sibling. And yet that is exactly what many faithful Catholic women feel they are hearing Olmsted tell us we must do.
Alexis,
Congratulations on your pregnancy, and my prayerful best wishes for a smooth landing for your little one.
You state:
“Gerard, I’ve already read Olmsted’s statement. And I said above that I agreed with you that the hospital was not acting as a Catholic hospital should.
“HOWEVER, I stand by my statement that Olmsted’s handling of the situation was appalling. Strip the hospital of its right to call itself “Catholic”? Sure. But don’t center it on THIS case if there are plenty of other cases.”
Let’s take a step back for a moment and consider Bishop Olmsted’s actions in chronological sequence.
Regarding the case of the woman with PH, Bishop Olmsted did NOT strip St. Joe’s of its status as a Catholic hospital in good standing back in the Spring when McBride acted like a thug and pilloried the Bishop publicly for his private meeting with her and his making clear to her that she had excommunicated herself.
To be clear, Bishop Olmsted is bound, not free to make canon law, or to dispense people from the moral norms that come down to us from God in Sacred Scripture. Bishops are the most bound individuals in the world when it comes to morality. They aren’t free to invent or dispense. Rather, they are obligated to faithfully hand on what has been handed on to them.
Back to the case. Bishop Olmsted’s statement makes it clear that the stripping of St. Joe’s status came as the result of revelations that St. Joe’s was part of a broader network of Catholic hospitals performing abortions in cases of rape, incest, and the “mental health” of the mother, in addition to sterilizations on men and women and the prescribing of all manner of contraception, many of which act as abortifacients.
It was based on those revelations, and not the PH case that led the Bishop to act as he did, more than half a year later.
I’m waiting on a call-back from a perinatologist to square a few outstanding details before commenting further on therapy.
Sister McBride and her minions cherry-picked this most excruciating of cases to use as a wedge case to justify their murderous management. That’s why she ran out and bleated about having been excommunicated. In reality, she has incurred that penalty many times over for permitting the abortions before this one. She is a vicious thug who has long ago rejected all ecclesial authority.
Olmsted, by contrast has maintained a dignified silence throughout his public pillorying. He acted only when the full extent of the treachery had been revealed.
Tim, if you wish to elaborate on where you disagree with me, feel free to do so. However, your comment was deleted because it does not comport with the tone I have set for my blog. This space is an extension of my living room and dining room table, and readers are asked to conduct their discourse accordingly.
If you have an intelligent and reasoned position grounded in a philosophy that points to some body of belief larger than your own whim, feel free to lay it out. Otherwise, I’m afraid I’ll be forced to ban you, as I have others.
GN
That’s not really relevant, is it? If there were no other way to save the woman’s life, would you not still insist that she be left to die?
Ken,
There is so much deceit and treachery involved in this case, different stories to suit McBride’s welfare. Again, there were several hospitals within a 3-mile radius that could have performed the abortion. Nobody has alleged that she would have been dead within hours.
The fact is that there appears to have been a period of months where patient and physician knew that a life-threatening complication could arise. I contend that in light of the revelations about a 26 year history of abortions for non-life-threatening complications there was a complete lack of regard for how the Church directs a morally acceptable practice of medicine is to occur under the Church’s roof.
We simply do not kill the baby as the therapeutic intervention. Period!
That the Catholic Church is alone in this indicates the extent to which this woman had abundant options elsewhere.
This was a set-up by McBride et al.
Alexis writes: “I’d like to hear what your source is for the claim ‘While the assessment on the part of physicians was dire, no treatment of the disease was even attempted.'”
I think you question may be answered in the very document you have linked to – not so much what it says, but what it omits. From the Commonweal PDF to which you linked:
“A 27-year old woman with a history of moderate but well-controlled pulmonary hypertension was seen on October 12, 2009, at her pulmonologist’s office for worsening symptoms of her disease. The results of a routine pregnancy test revealed that in spite of her great efforts to avoid it, she had conceived and was then seven-and-a-half weeks
pregnant. The pulmonologist counseled her that her safest course of action was to end the pregnancy…..Importantly, the woman, a Catholic with four children, decided not to terminate.”
So, at 7.5 weeks and still ambulatory, and in her doctor’s office (the doctor having privileges at St. Joe’s), the woman was advised to have an abortion. She declined. This in itself is significant since she was not “dying” at this point, yet a direct abortion was recommended by a doctor who has privileges at a Catholic hospital (which is supposed to follow directives which forbid direct abortion). Sounds to me like this was standard operating procedure rather than a dire emergency, at least at that point.
The next we read, it is almost 4 weeks later, and she is admitted to the hospital with “worsening symptoms.” So, in that 4 week interum, did her doctor begin her on an alternate treatment plan, or did he just send her home when she declined his abortion recommendation?
I don’t know about you, but I feel very certain that, had the doc offered her an alternate treatment plan, which evidently failed, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE REPORT since it would give more weight to their assertion that the abortion was “necessary.”
That big “space” between paragraph one, and paragraph two of Dr. Lysaught’s analysis is significant, because for all intents and purposes, it appears that her doctor recommended abortion, she declined, and she was then left to either continue her current treatment which obviously was not effective (whatever that was), or she was left to do nothing but wait until her condition worsened.
No, I feel certain that had her doctor aggressively attempted to treat her PH when she was 7.5 weeks, this would have been clearly stressed in the Commonweal PDF of Dr. Lysaught’s analysis.
Dr. Nadal:
Thank you for this defense of Bishop Olmsted. I have spent a considerable amount of time reading and re-reading Dr. Lysaught’s analysis (and defense) of St. Joseph’s “intervention” – which Bishop Olmsted rightly (I believe), rejected.
I have several concerns with the medical portions of her analysis. As such, I am wondering if you would do an analysis of your own regarding her assertions in that analysis.
For example, on page 3 she states: “In many cases of fetal demise, the pregnancy itself continues; fetal death
is often not detected for weeks or months, although the pregnancy itself continues to proceed and develop…”
I am not a doctor (neither is she), but have spent more than 20 years as a health care professional. What she is describing here is generally termed a “missed abortion”, a type of miscarriage where the unborn has died, but has not been expelled. While the SYMPTOMS of pregnancy may continue for a few weeks, it is not generally said that the PREGNANCY “continues to proceed and develop.”
This might sound like a small thing, but it is relevant to her overall conclusion. She peppers her report with statements that draw a stark division between “pregnancy” and “fetus”, leading to her final conclusion that “Given the clinical
facts of the situation, the phrase “termination of pregnancy” is an accurate medical description of what the intervention was trying to achieve (to terminate the burden of the
pregnancy not to kill the child);…”
So, given this sharp distinction between “pregnancy” and “fetus” according to Dr. Lysaught, such that we can terminate a perfectly healthy pregnancy while not intending to kill the unborn child, why can we not “justify” virtually any abortion?
I think Bishop Olmsted was certainly right to refuse to accept this novel “justification” offered by CHW!
Ken Pidcock
Yes, yes he would. After all, it is far more important to feel holy about not permitting abortions, then actually save people’s lives.
Particularly if you are male, and thus not effected by the policy in question.
A bit like being anti-gay marriage is very easy for straight people.
I should like to see you address seriously, soberly, responsibly and without any condescension towards women M. Therese Lysaught’s analysis of the situation, which is so at odds with yours that one of you must be either sadly mistaken or being wholly dishonest. Come on, be a man.
Gerard M. Nadal
The moral and canonical case doesn’t seem to be quite as clear cut as you make out. For example, you’re aware that Kevin O’Rourke questions both?
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12399
In an ideal Catholic society you would presumably insist all hospitals never directly abort, so it’s important to a Catholic woman about to become pregnant that she understands that the Catholic Church would allow her to die should a fatal condition arise that could only be resolved by a direct abortion. Isn’t it?
Is this information well disseminated in Catholic communities?
As I mentioned at Jeff Miller’s blog, no one really knows what the hospital admin’s official excuse is because it’s a moving target. I’ve heard:
–No one knows the full medical details of the case which are confidential; that includes the bishop.
–It wasn’t an abortion, it was something else.
–It was an abortion, but double-effect applies.
And my favorite Orwellian excuse: We saved the only person that could be saved, the mother.
But it bears repeating: the bishop isn’t pulling their status based on this single case, but on a pile of un-Catholic practices that clearly demonstrate that the hospital doesn’t want to follow Catholic ethical guidlines. At all. It’s as if a chapter of the NAACP started hosting cross-burnings and running around in white hoods and when the president rightfully tells them they can’t be in the NAACP anymore people go up in arms as if he’s just being a meanie and throwing his weight around.
Gerard, thank you for your good wishes. Thankfully, our precious little one seems to be doing well now and we’ve had no more complications. 🙂 Three ultrasounds have shown a very wiggly little baby with a good, strong heartbeat.
Mark, thank you for the link to Kevin O’Rourke’s article — very interesting reading.
I think I”ll bow out of this conversation for now. Unless this mother ever decides to make her complete medical records available to all of us (highly unlikely, I would imagine!), all we can do is make assumptions and inferences. I do hope and pray that the Church will further look into how to address cases where pregnancy truly does endanger the mother’s life pre-viability, and that medicine looks at ways other than abortion to help these women.
Tim,
I consider the defense of the weakest among us, the defense of the bishops in a culture hostile to both to be a manly endeavor. If you’ve read my responses, then you’ll see that I have addressed the most substantive parts of Lysaught’s analysis.
I side with the Magisterium.
I side with the truth, that this woman’s physician knew the dangers and didn’t warn her that an abortion might be indicated in his judgement and that St Joe’s couldn’t do it.
I side with the truth that this was a set-up and hit job on Bishop Olmsted, and that 26 years of abortions show that these people in charge are deceitful and treacherous, carrying out capital sentence on babies for their father’s crimes (rape and incest).
Defending the indefensible in such cases may be popular, Tim. However, it doesn’t make it right, and no amount of morality-by-consensus can ever make it right.
Take your talk of manhood and shove it buddy. You obviously have a long way to go before you grow into manhood. You’re off the site until I’m back from attending to a dying relative. I don’t need trolls stinking the place up.
Thank you for a great post, Gerard.
I have to ask, in all the discussion I have heard of this case, WHY is this information about treatment for pregnant women with pulmonary hypertension being almost completely ignored?
http://www.wisn.com/r/17994163/detail.html
(Also posted earlier by thereserita)
So there IS treatment for this condition other than abortion! As Gerard notes, it doesn’t seem that the doctor or hospital investigated this treatment at any time, even when the pregnancy was first discovered and the mother’s condition wasn’t critical.
I am not a doctor. I stumbled across this article weeks ago on the internet. So if I could find it, why didn’t a Catholic (or supposedly Catholic) hospital know this treatment was an option? Why weren’t they on the phone to this Dr. Zwicke as soon as this case arose (or before it arose)? Any Catholic hospital has a special responsibility to know as much as possible about conditions that can threaten the life of a pregnant women, and what the best and most up-to-date treatments are, especially for cases where a non-Catholic hospital would recommend abortion. For a Catholic hospital not to know about this alternative treatment for pulmonary hypertension BEFORE any pregnant woman with pulmonary hypertension came in the door is grossly negligant.
Alexis C: just to point out that Bishop Olmsted has been in dialogue with this particular hospital for a period of many years.
The fact is that they consider it a “catholic” position to abort babies when the mother’s life is in danger.
They were told by their bishop that this was unacceptable for a “catholic ” hospital. It seems quite evident that this mother’s care was mismanaged and a child died as a result.
Thank you to Theresa S. for bringing to light some important facts in this case that I was not aware of.
“In an ideal Catholic society you would presumably insist all hospitals never directly abort, so it’s important to a Catholic woman about to become pregnant that she understands that the Catholic Church would allow her to die should a fatal condition arise that could only be resolved by a direct abortion. Isn’t it?”
This is a twisted, misogynist statement of the truth of Catholic teaching. Let me tell you why: It is the secular, contemporary facsimile of compassion for women…a.k.a. fool’s gold. The Catholic Church is never about “either/or” is always about “both/and”. The devil divides, God unites. Always.
As a post-abortive mom, let me be the first to assure you that the Church’s insistence on the right of the child to life not only is a defense of that child, as Gerard states in the comments below, but also a robust defense of the child’s mother and EVERY person’s dignity & right to life. When the strawman argument is introduced that sets the interests of the mother against the interests of her baby, as your argument does, you’ve killed both. Dr. Gianna Molla knew this & testified to it with her life.
For more on Faux Compassion please see: http://www.zealforyourhouseconsumesme.com/2010/11/well-meaning-anonymous-commentor-left.html