Arizona Hospital administrator demoted and excommunicated

[Kopji]

A Catholic nun and longtime administrator of St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix was reassigned in the wake of a decision to allow a pregnancy to be ended in order to save the life of a critically ill patient.

The decision also drew a sharp rebuke from Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix Diocese, who indicated the woman was "automatically excommunicated" because of the action.

"In those instances where the Directives do not explicitly address a clinical situation - such as when a pregnancy threatens a woman's life - an Ethics Committee is convened to help our caregivers and their patients make the most life-affirming decision.

"In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother's life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy. This decision was made after consultation with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee, of which Sr. Margaret McBride is a member."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/15/20100515phoenix-catholic-nun-abortion.html

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/05/14/20100514stjoseph0515bishop.html


There are several concerns.

Not the least is why any quality doctor or nurse would work at a hospital where their ethics council decisions were guided not by what was best for the patient. Why would you ever want to be treated in a hospital that did not have your best interest in mind?

Another is that Catholics ethics seem to be satisfied with an outcome that would result in the death of both unborn child and mother, instead of only one. If your ethical system is not capable of making better decisions than this, what good is it?

And lastly - automatic excommunication of the administrator. This moves them into the realm of doing actual evil to a believer. It takes years to excommunicate an abusing priest, but a nun working in her capacity to save lives is out in seconds without recourse or ability to protest.

[shadron]

When my mother was of that age, the RC automatically excommunicated anyone having a tubal ligation. Like many such strictures at the time, this one was ignored in the US by most Catholics, and the US Council of Bishops gave tacit approval to that ignorance. That is not the case today, of course.

[Rasmus]

Catholics still catholic. News at 11.

[lionking]

Catholics still catholic. News at 11.
That, and if you work at a Catholic hospital, you comply with their rules.

[Nosi]

Most religions = control of the flock.:mad:

[Kopji]

Actually I was surprised at this, it makes a farce of the ethics review process.

What is the purpose of an ethics review board if the members can be punished by the sponsoring entity for a decision? All members that participated in this decision should offer their resignation, THAT is their ethical response. If they don't they have no right to be on that board.

I've had at at least one forum discussion where I was assured that when a church owned a hospital, the hospital worked independently and was not beholden to the authorities of the church. This was clearly a lie and I should have pressed the point further.

[TimCallahan]

It's interesting that "right to life" apparently does not mean the mother's right to life. Also, considering that the pregnancy would have proved fatal for the mother, it's likely that, had the 11 week-old (thus still in the first trimester) fetus not been aborted, it would have died along with the mother in the course of the pregnancy.

The absurdity of the decision to demote and excommunicate a competent professional for acting professionally and ethically reminds me of the Terri Schaivo case, where right-to-lifers wanted to maintain the life of a vegetable whose brain had been deprived of oxygen for over ten minutes. The longest a brain can go without suffering major damage is about three minutes. Thus, the likelihood that Terri Schaivo's brain still held her personality was nil.

[shadron]

The absurdity of the decision to demote and excommunicate a competent professional for acting professionally and ethically reminds me of the Terri Schaivo case, where right-to-lifers wanted to maintain the life of a vegetable whose brain had been deprived of oxygen for over ten minutes. The longest a brain can go without suffering major damage is about three minutes. Thus, the likelihood that Terri Schaivo's brain still held her personality was nil.

I pretty much agree with you, Tim, but a couple of things in this last paragraph are not right. Many, many cases of deprivation to the brain longer than three minutes have resulted in recovery. Magicians in the Houdini mold quite often exceed this limit, as do trained divers and military special forces. There are several conditions which can mitigate a time limit, including hypothermia and unconsciousness.

The real problem in the Shiavo case is that the brain exhibited extreme atrophy; it had literally shrunk to (one-third? one fifth?) of it's living size, indicating the major brain cell die-off that had occurred in her injury. Her body was re-absorbing the dead tissue, leaving only the cerebellum (the so-called "reptile brain") relatively intact and still operating.

[Safe-Keeper]

The absurdity of the decision to demote and excommunicate a competent professional for acting professionally and ethically reminds me of the Terri Schaivo case, where right-to-lifers wanted to maintain the life of a vegetable whose brain had been deprived of oxygen for over ten minutes. The longest a brain can go without suffering major damage is about three minutes. Thus, the likelihood that Terri Schaivo's brain still held her personality was nil.As others have said, it's absurd and disgusting how priests can literally rape children and keep their job, while minor things like breaking your celibacy wov by sleeping with a man or aborting a foetus who would have died anyway will get you instantly thrown out of the church.

Catholics still catholic. News at 11. Well, yeah. That too.

[MG1962]

All she has to do is go to confession, and she is back on the team

[marplots]

Gotta believe she won't have too much trouble getting another job though.

Resume.... Fired from last position for saving a patient's life.

[godless dave]

Funny, I could have sworn I've heard Catholics claim that the church allows abortion if it's necessary to save the life of the mother. But the recent case in Nicaragua showed that wasn't true anyway.

[Meadmaker]

My high school CCD teachers are hardly authoritative sources on the subtleties of Catholic doctrine, but this doesn't strike me as correct. Obviously, the Bishop is a better source of information, but I'm still wondering if we aren't heaing something about this case. It's also possible that in the intervening 30 years, the church position has hardened a bit. I note that in citing church doctrine, JPII was the pope cited, so it may be that he advocated an even harder line. I haven't exactly kept up on church teachings ever since I gave up Catholicism for Lent one year, half my lifetime ago.

Still, I'll be looking for some clarification on this story. Something doesn't seem right about it.

ETA: One of the things I have to wonder about was the certainty of death of the mother. The story seemed to indicate that there was a rapid decision that needed to be made immediately, and that if the abortion were not performed right away, the mother would die. Was that really the case? Or was it a case of there being a high probability, but not certainty, of death if the abortion were not performed.

If that was the case, i.e. if death was probable, but not certain, then I would think the Bishop was "correct" to excommunicate the nun. I say "correct" in the sense that he was appropriately following Catholic doctrine, which is pretty darned crazy, but it is what Bishops do for a living. If, however, death was certain, then I'm fairly certain that someone could find a way to demonstrate that the procedure required removing a large tissue mass that was aggravating the pulmonary hypertension, which would mean that it would be acceptable even if the fetus (which was, in fact, the large tissue mass) died in the process.

[leon_heller]

My mother was excommunicated for marrying my father (her first husband died) in a Registry Office. She eventually got received back into the church, many years later, but ended up as an agnostic, if not an atheist.

[Achán hiNidráne]

It's interesting that "right to life" apparently does not mean the mother's right to life. Also, considering that the pregnancy would have proved fatal for the mother, it's likely that, had the 11 week-old (thus still in the first trimester) fetus not been aborted, it would have died along with the mother in the course of the pregnancy.

Why not? In their worldview, if the woman was a "good Catholic," she get's to Magic Jesus Land when she dies.

It's sort of like Islamic suicide bombings... only with the reproductive system rather than a vest full of C-4.

[Kopji]

From popular Catholic site NewAdvent:
(snipped to keep the length brief)

Excommunication... the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion... ...he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

So it is incorrect to say that one could simply repair the damage caused by this by choosing to take communion or repent. The person is an outcast. On the other hand this is probably a different meaning of excommunication than I would use, which essentially condemning someone to a lake of fire forever

I've stated before that correct ethical decisions can't always be arrived at by systemic dogma, and I'd offer this incident as an example. Something in the process is flawed if the baby brought to Solomon is cut in half and everyone goes away satisfied. Certainly this is a difficult ethical decision to make, and I would also say that it is not one that could be rightly made by a single person. This is a classic example of what should be brought for discussion by an ethics board. But what could the possible purpose of an ethics board be if it does not give 'cover' to decisions? It is a facade, and no hospital that works this way should ever be considered one of the "best". It should be condemned, at least by women, who also seem to receive short shrift by all religions, no matter the name or claimed cause.

This woman seemed doomed by her religion because of her medical condition.

So the evil the nun should repent of, is as far as I can tell, choosing one life instead of losing both lives.

[rwguinn]

From popular Catholic site NewAdvent:
(snipped to keep the length brief)

So it is incorrect to say that one could simply repair the damage caused by this by choosing to take communion or repent. The person is an outcast. On the other hand this is probably a different meaning of excommunication than I would use, which essentially condemning someone to a lake of fire forever

I've stated before that correct ethical decisions can't always be arrived at by systemic dogma, and I'd offer this incident as an example. Something in the process is flawed if the baby brought to Solomon is cut in half and everyone goes away satisfied. Certainly this is a difficult ethical decision to make, and I would also say that it is not one that could be rightly made by a single person. This is a classic example of what should be brought for discussion by an ethics board. But what could the possible purpose of an ethics board be if it does not give 'cover' to decisions? It is a facade, and no hospital that works this way should ever be considered one of the "best". It should be condemned, at least by women, who also seem to receive short shrift by all religions, no matter the name or claimed cause.

This woman seemed doomed by her religion because of her medical condition.

So the evil the nun should repent of, is as far as I can tell, choosing one life instead of losing both lives.
My wife said she studied under this lady, back when she was a student nurse.
A finer, more dedicated person never existed in the profession, according to her.

[TimCallahan]

My mother was excommunicated for marrying my father (her first husband died) in a Registry Office. She eventually got received back into the church, many years later, but ended up as an agnostic, if not an atheist.

I suspect the Roman Catholic church is far less monolithic than those of us looking at it from the outside would think, with considerable latitude given to each diocese. When I was much younger I worked with a Catholic nurse who was married to a Protestant. The Church recognized their marriage, even though he wasn't allowed to take communion, etc. On the other hand, a woman I know was denied confirmation as girl because one of her parents wasn't Catholic.

I suspect the same thing might well be true with respect to aborting a fetus to save the mother. In one diocese it might be accepted, while in another the result would be as it happened to this doctor. She may have had the misfortune to reside in the wrong diocese. I also suspect that in most cases the Vatican would not intervene, regardless of which decision is made - although that can't be taken as a given.

[Marduk]

Who cares really, the patient, the administrating nun and the Bishop are all Catholics, if they want to go round making themselves look like asses thats entirely up to them.
They chose to live like that. I'm sure theres a number of other religously run hospitals who would hire the nun. theyd see it as a real coup. Don't the mormons have hospitals, what about the scientologists, if she plays her cards right she could be auditing engrams by the end of the week
:D

[Sledge]

I'm confused. How would dying have been a more life-affirming decision? I fully expect the official Catholic answer to make no sense, but I'll ask anyway.

[Marduk]

I'm confused. How would dying have been a more life-affirming decision? I fully expect the official Catholic answer to make no sense, but I'll ask anyway.

Its gods will innit
If you stop someone from doing something that God has preordained you are risking his wrath, which is why he has the Vatican because like all lower end deities he can't be bothered to be responsible for his own actions

Its Enlil and Ninlil all over again
:D

[shadron]

If that was the case, i.e. if death was probable, but not certain, then I would think the Bishop was "correct" to excommunicate the nun. I say "correct" in the sense that he was appropriately following Catholic doctrine, which is pretty darned crazy, but it is what Bishops do for a living. If, however, death was certain, then I'm fairly certain that someone could find a way to demonstrate that the procedure required removing a large tissue mass that was aggravating the pulmonary hypertension, which would mean that it would be acceptable even if the fetus (which was, in fact, the large tissue mass) died in the process.

Well, I don't know. In a narrow and disciplinary argument I suppose you may be right. However, RC is not protestantism. The RC has long held up St. Paul's admonishment that faith without good works is just an empty symbol; in fact, that was one of the main disagreements between the RC and the Protestants - they see faith alone as sufficient, where Catholicism sets charity at the point. Further, the source of Catholic dogma is not the Bible, but the church tradition, and inasmuch as the good lady was creating tradition she is trying to re-aim the direction of the church. Conservatives rail against it, but John XXIII would have, if not welcomed it, at least not shot it down at the door, and the majority of US Catholic bishops in the 1970s would have agreed. IMO, of course.

[Miss_Kitt]

The Directives as quoted in the above articles says that in the case of a pregnant woman, there are two patients' lives at stake, and neither can be valued above the other. Yet the only other option is for both to die, in some cases. I do not understand a worldview that prefers two deaths to one, especially when one life iha only begun (even by Catholic standards).

Does the Church have the same standard for conjoined twins? If one can be saved but not the other, is it morally correct for both to die instead?

The doctor in question really had to choose between a doctrinal rule and legal and ethical necessity. Any doctor who refused life-saving treatment would be liable for malpractice and possibly charged with some form of negligent manslaughter.

I hope she finds work elsewhere in the field, and some comfort that many people--even many catholics--consider her decision to have been moral and just given the extraordinary circumstances.

[Darth Rotor]

A Catholic nun and longtime administrator of St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix was reassigned in the wake of a decision to allow a pregnancy to be ended in order to save the life of a critically ill patient.
That makes no sense to me.
The decision also drew a sharp rebuke from Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix Diocese, who indicated the woman was "automatically excommunicated" because of the action.
Some notes from wiki, as they are more concise than Code of Canon Law or CCC.

Excommunication can be either ferendae sententiae (declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court) or, far more commonly, latae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment the offensive act takes place). The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is indelible. Their communion with the Church, however, is considered gravely impaired.

In the code of Roman Catholic canon law currently in force, there are eight instances when a person may incur excommunication latæ sententiæ. Unless the excusing circumstances outlined in canons 1321-1330 are verified, the following persons incur excommunication latæ sententiæ:



an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic;
a person who throws away the consecrated Eucharistic species or takes and retains them for a sacrilegious purpose;
a person who uses physical force against the Pope;
a priest who uses confession as a pretext to solicit the confessor to break the commandment against adultery;
a bishop who ordains someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate, and the person who receives the ordination from him;
a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession;
a person who procures a completed abortion; and
accomplices who are not named in a law prescribing latae sententiae excommunication but without whose assistance the violation of the law would not have been committed.


I am guessing this is case 7 or case 8.

In the Catholic Church, formal excommunication is normally resolved by a statement of repentance, profession of the Creed (if the offense involved heresy), or a renewal of obedience (if that was a relevant part of the offending act) by the excommunicant; the declaration of the reconciliation itself, by a priest or bishop empowered to do this; and then the reception of the sacrament of Reconciliation. In many cases, this whole process takes place within the privacy of the confessional and during the same act of confession.

If I understand this, one confession and a penance, and she'll be right as rain.

DR

[fuelair]

That makes no sense to me.

Some notes from wiki, as they are more concise than Code of Canon Law or CCC.




I am guessing this is case 7 or case 8.



If I understand this, one confession and a penance, and she'll be right as rain.

DRPersonally, I think the church should apologize to her and seek her forgiveness.:mad:

[Darth Rotor]

Personally, I think the church should apologize to her and seek her forgiveness.:mad:
The excommunication seems to be automatic, not a deliberative matter as Henry VIII's was, which is why I posted the bit on latæ sententiæ. The demotion I agree with you about, they ought to make amends but as an earlier post noted, Catholic heirarchy acting like Catholic heirarchy isn't news. (My friend Leo and his wife are still wrestling the the San Antonio Archdiocese about previous their marriages and annulments. This irritating process leaves Leo frustrated, per our occasional "over a beer" discussion).

Her demotion may or may not be recoverable from, but if I read the rules right, a confession etc should remove the excommunication problem for her.

DR

[Damien Evans]

I suspect the Roman Catholic church is far less monolithic than those of us looking at it from the outside would think, with considerable latitude given to each diocese. When I was much younger I worked with a Catholic nurse who was married to a Protestant. The Church recognized their marriage, even though he wasn't allowed to take communion, etc. On the other hand, a woman I know was denied confirmation as girl because one of her parents wasn't Catholic.

I suspect the same thing might well be true with respect to aborting a fetus to save the mother. In one diocese it might be accepted, while in another the result would be as it happened to this doctor. She may have had the misfortune to reside in the wrong diocese. I also suspect that in most cases the Vatican would not intervene, regardless of which decision is made - although that can't be taken as a given.

This reminds me of my family. My mums family is protestant, my dads catholic. Most priests we've had in our parish are so relaxed about it they'd let mum take communion even though she's not catholic. But one priest we had for a couple of months while our usual one was having cancer treatment declared that me and my brothers were bastards because mum isn't catholic.

The church is crazy like that.

[kerikiwi]

This reminds me of my family. My mums family is protestant, my dads catholic. Most priests we've had in our parish are so relaxed about it they'd let mum take communion even though she's not catholic. But one priest we had for a couple of months while our usual one was having cancer treatment declared that me and my brothers were bastards because mum isn't catholic.

The church is crazy like that.

Well, the church may be crazy but some people amaze me too.
Why would your mother want to take communion if she isn't catholic?

[P.J. Denyer]

Well, the church may be crazy but some people amaze me too.
Why would your mother want to take communion if she isn't catholic?

Free crackers and wine?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I suspect the Roman Catholic church is far less monolithic than those of us looking at it from the outside would think, with considerable latitude given to each diocese. When I was much younger I worked with a Catholic nurse who was married to a Protestant. The Church recognized their marriage, even though he wasn't allowed to take communion, etc. On the other hand, a woman I know was denied confirmation as girl because one of her parents wasn't Catholic.

I suspect the same thing might well be true with respect to aborting a fetus to save the mother. In one diocese it might be accepted, while in another the result would be as it happened to this doctor. She may have had the misfortune to reside in the wrong diocese. I also suspect that in most cases the Vatican would not intervene, regardless of which decision is made - although that can't be taken as a given.

I was a devout Catholic before I was agnostic. I went to several different parishes, as I moved, but in all parishes we had openly gay members and homosexuality was not condemned. Although the churches I belonged to were pro life, they focussed on ways to prevent abortion rather than condemning it (for instance, running adoption services, setting up social services to help single mothers, etc). My grandparents were not going to attend their son's wedding because he was marrying a non Catholic, and their local bishop (who they were friends with) was the one who convinced them to go and to support him in his decision.

I think a lot of reasons Catholics can stay Catholics despite the Vatican's rules or misdeeds is because many Catholics do not really feel connected to the Vatican as they do to their own diocese. Sure there are Catholics who really do believe the Pope is the word of God on earth and look to him as their leader...but there are also many who simply don't pay much mind to Catholic teachings, rules, actions, etc, outside of their own church.

[Robo Sapien]

I was a devout Catholic before I was agnostic. I went to several different parishes, as I moved, but in all parishes we had openly gay members and homosexuality was not condemned. Although the churches I belonged to were pro life, they focussed on ways to prevent abortion rather than condemning it (for instance, running adoption services, setting up social services to help single mothers, etc). My grandparents were not going to attend their son's wedding because he was marrying a non Catholic, and their local bishop (who they were friends with) was the one who convinced them to go and to support him in his decision.

I think a lot of reasons Catholics can stay Catholics despite the Vatican's rules or misdeeds is because many Catholics do not really feel connected to the Vatican as they do to their own diocese. Sure there are Catholics who really do believe the Pope is the word of God on earth and look to him as their leader...but there are also many who simply don't pay much mind to Catholic teachings, rules, actions, etc, outside of their own church.


Agreed, but the doctrine itself is nutty. The Vatican is just a conglomeration of all that is nutrageous in Catholicism.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Agreed, but the doctrine itself is nutty. The Vatican is just a conglomeration of all that is nutrageous in Catholicism.

that is why I ultimately left the church. Though my personal experience with church members and clergy were overwhelmingly positive, in the end I just realized I didn't buy into it (doctrine wise). I still remained active in the Church for several years after I had lost my faith just because I WANTED to believe it. In the end though, I had to admit I was being dishonest to myself.

[Darth Rotor]

Well, the church may be crazy but some people amaze me too.
Why would your mother want to take communion if she isn't catholic?
For the simple reason that she received communion at her other church? According to RCC rules, she isn't supposed to if she's not of the Catholic faith.

As to this:
But one priest we had for a couple of months while our usual one was having cancer treatment declared that me and my brothers were bastards because mum isn't catholic.
He's wrong about that. He ought to know better, being a priest and all ...

Canon 1137 Children who are conceived or born of a valid or of a putative marriage are legitimate.
Canon 1138.1 The father is he who is identified by a lawful marriage, unless by clear arguments the contrary is proven.
Canon 1138.2 Children are presumed legitimate who are born at least 180 days after the date the marriage was celebrated, or within 300 days from the date of the dissolution of conjugal life.
You can have a valid marriage between Catholic and non-Catholic. For the full Monty, the sacramental marriage, as I understand RCC rules, both must be RC's. I don't know if Eastern Rite Catholics have to make some sort of switch.

DR

[Meadmaker]

Free crackers and wine?

You've obviously never tasted the "crackers", and I think I had wine once in my life at communion.

[Darth Rotor]

I think a lot of reasons Catholics can stay Catholics despite the Vatican's rules or misdeeds is because many Catholics do not really feel connected to the Vatican as they do to their own diocese. Sure there are Catholics who really do believe the Pope is the word of God on earth and look to him as their leader...but there are also many who simply don't pay much mind to Catholic teachings, rules, actions, etc, outside of their own church.
That's matches my own observation. Not sure if that's an Americanism, or common worldwide.

One small nitpick: the Pope isn't, and never was, the Word of God on Earth. That was Jesus. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and as such the leader/shepard-in-chief of the church.

DR

[Schrodinger's Cat]

That's matches my own observation. Not sure if that's an Americanism, or common worldwide.

One small nitpick: the Pope isn't, and never was, the Word of God on Earth. That was Jesus. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and as such the leader/shepard-in-chief of the church.

DR

Oh yes, that's true. I mispoke. What I meant to say is that not all Catholics actually believe in Papal infallability when it comes to Church doctrine, but some do.

[Darth Rotor]

Oh yes, that's true. I mispoke. What I meant to say is that not all Catholics actually believe in Papal infallability when it comes to Church doctrine, but some do.
Aye, which reminds me of the old lady at St Peter's square, with her numerous grandchildren hanging to her skirts. The Pope is pontificating about contraception, which gets this respond from the lady:

"Papa! You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules!"

[Lucian]

The excommunication seems to be automatic, not a deliberative matter as Henry VIII's was, which is why I posted the bit on latæ sententiæ. The demotion I agree with you about, they ought to make amends but as an earlier post noted, Catholic heirarchy acting like Catholic heirarchy isn't news. (My friend Leo and his wife are still wrestling the the San Antonio Archdiocese about previous their marriages and annulments. This irritating process leaves Leo frustrated, per our occasional "over a beer" discussion).

Her demotion may or may not be recoverable from, but if I read the rules right, a confession etc should remove the excommunication problem for her.

DR

What if she doesn't actually repent saving a woman's life?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Aye, which reminds me of the old lady at St Peter's square, with her numerous grandchildren hanging to her skirts. The Pope is pontificating about contraception, which gets this respond from the lady:

"Papa! You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules!"

LOL, that's great.

[ponderingturtle]

link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072)

Last November, a 27-year-old woman was admitted to St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. She was 11 weeks pregnant with her fifth child, and she was gravely ill. According to a hospital document, she had "right heart failure," and her doctors told her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of mortality was "close to 100 percent."

The patient, who was too ill to be moved to the operating room much less another hospital, agreed to an abortion. But there was a complication: She was at a Catholic hospital.

"They were in quite a dilemma," says Lisa Sowle Cahill, who teaches Catholic theology at Boston College. "There was no good way out of it. The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make."

See how the anti abortion crowd simply does not care about women?

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm wondering why the nurse had the final authority in this matter ..

[ponderingturtle]

I'm wondering why the nurse had the final authority in this matter ..

Where did you get the idea she was a nurse from? The article calls her an administrator not a nurse. It never uses the word nurse at all?

[Cainkane1]

If I were born Catholic I'd deliberately try to get excommunicated. Historically Catholics perform abortions after the person is grown especially if they are an american indian or a jew or muslim or protestant or whatever.

[Darth Rotor]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175682

You are a few days late, there is already a thread on this in this sub forum. Will recommend a merge.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

That, and if you work at a Catholic hospital, you comply with their rules.

And if you end up sick at one know that they will violate standard of care when it comes up against their principles.

But hey it at least shows that they can leap into action when a member does something wrong. Clearly this is much worse than merely molesting a couple of hundred of deaf boys, or they would have excommunicated that guy.

They are showing their priorities nicely.

[ponderingturtle]

I pretty much agree with you, Tim, but a couple of things in this last paragraph are not right. Many, many cases of deprivation to the brain longer than three minutes have resulted in recovery. Magicians in the Houdini mold quite often exceed this limit, as do trained divers and military special forces. There are several conditions which can mitigate a time limit, including hypothermia and unconsciousness.

Somewhat true, the thing is that holding your breath does not deprive the brain of oxygen instantly. This number is more about things like heart attacks and such. Houdini and divers do not change this number as they have oxygen stored in their body that is being supplied to the brain.

[ponderingturtle]

This woman seemed doomed by her religion because of her medical condition.


Any mentioning on if the patient was catholic?

[Darth Rotor]

What if she doesn't actually repent saving a woman's life?
Since that isn't what she got the excommunication for (did you bother reading the extract from the link I posted?) then that isn't what's involved in her confession and absolution from sin. The grounds for the auto excommunicate deal is stated clearly in the extract I posted.

Please educate yourself. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

If you go to item VI, it describes how to overcome such an excommunication. (I didn't write it, the incredibly verbose authors of Catholic Encyclopedia did. They never use five words where fifty will do. :P )

As fuelair pointed out, and I agree, the demotion for doing the medically correct thing was a foul. She's an official of the hospital, and she made a decision that saved the mother's life. By her so doing, the mother can become pregnant again.

The reasoning for the demotion is utterly vacant. I read the Bishop's "rigid adherence to principle line" and got irritated.

The Hospital's response:

"In those instances where the Directives do not explicitly address a clinical situation - such as when a pregnancy threatens a woman's life - an Ethics Committee is convened to help our caregivers and their patients make the most life-affirming decision.

"In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother's life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy. This decision was made after consultation with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee, of which Sr. Margaret McBride is a member."



DR

[Skeptical Greg]

Where did you get the idea she was a nurse from? The article calls her an administrator not a nurse. It never uses the word nurse at all?My bad - I saw Nun -Hospital - my brain made Nurse out of that for some reason ...

Carry on ....

[Darth Rotor]

My bad - I saw Nun -Hospital - my brain made Nurse out of that for some reason ...

Possible reason (www.beautifulnurses.us). :cool:

ETA

Apologies to all: that should have come with NSFW warning. My bad, and shame on me. :(

[Skeptical Greg]

Thanks.. Glad my boss was not looking over my shoulder ...

I usually respect your opinions and comments on issues, but that was uncalled for ..

[Lucian]

Since that isn't what she got the excommunication for (did you bother reading the extract from the link I posted?) then that isn't what's involved in her confession and absolution from sin. The grounds for the auto excommunicate deal is stated clearly in the extract I posted.

Please educate yourself. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

If you go to item VI, it describes how to overcome such an excommunication. (I didn't write it, the incredibly verbose authors of Catholic Encyclopedia did. They never use five words where fifty will do. :P )

I read it. Regardless of the type of excommunication, repentance still seems necessary. From your Catholic Encyclopedia link:

The absolution which revokes excommunication is purely jurisdictional and has nothing sacramental about it. It reinstates the repentant sinner in the Church;

Excommunication, it must be remembered, is a medicinal penalty intended, above all, for the correction of the culprit; therefore his first duty is to solicit pardon by showing an inclination to obey the orders given him, just as it is the duty of ecclesiastical authority to receive back the sinner as soon as he repents and declares himself disposed to give the required satisfaction.


So, she was excommunicated for allowing an abortion; she allowed the abortion in order to save the woman's life. What happens if she does not repent her actions? I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely trying to understand. Being readmitted to communion seems to involve repentance; however, I assume she didn't make her decision lightly. What if she still believes her decision was correct and can't repent?

[Sledge]

Thanks.. Glad my boss was not looking over my shoulder ...

I usually respect your opinions and comments on issues, but that was uncalled for ..

Coulda been worse, coulda been page 3 of that site.

And no, don't go looking at that page if you're at work. Unless you work in the sex industry.

[Darth Rotor]

I read it. Regardless of the type of excommunication, repentance still seems necessary.
Yes, for the abortion approval decision. (Quite frankly, since it was an act of mercy, in saving the woman's life, I am still irritated that this wasn't taken into account, and a dispensation made. Bishops can often do that, and where they can't, they can recommend such to their superiors).
So, she was excommunicated for allowing an abortion; she allowed the abortion in order to save the woman's life. What happens if she does not repent her actions?
If she doesn't confess to the sin of authorizing an abortion, and ask for forgiveness, my guess is that she can't receive communion. She does not need to repent the saving of a life, is the point I was trying to make, though we both realize the two are directly related.
I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm genuinely trying to understand.
We have about reached the limit of my understanding. The RCC sets up this conflict by not having an explicit provision for medical necessity. (If it has one, I am unaware of it, maybe I can find one. I don't think it's there).
ETA: CCC 2270 -2275 tell me nothing, other than "no abortion."

From the RCC Encyclopedia, we get this.
•The name of obstetrical abortion is given by physicians to such as is performed to save the life of the mother. Whether this practice is ever morally lawful we shall consider below.

So we get this "consideration" (no, wait, it's actually more akin to bloviation ... )

However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked.

Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them.

The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended.

It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:

•That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
•That the immediate effect be good in itself;
•That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;
•That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
So far, this argues that to save the life of the mother, it can be done. But ...
All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother's life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother's life is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life.

Of course provision must be made for the child's spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed.
That makes NO sense, as Baptism by intention is a valid Baptism. If mom intended Baptism ... we don't know if this mother did, however, but I'll assume for the moment that she did.
Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian.
OK, cumbersome but workable if you have nuns and priests running about the hospital. In an emergency, anyone can Baptize you. That's doctrinally correct.

Quite frankly, from the above, i tlooks to me as though she has support from this version of RCC theory for what she did. It seems clear to me, but then, I'm not a bishop.

There may be an encyclical from the Pope that addresses this that I'm not aware of.
Being readmitted to communion seems to involve repentance; however, I assume she didn't make her decision lightly. What if she still believes her decision was correct and can't repent?
A question I don't know the answer to, other than to ask for special dispensation on grounds of mercy, or the saving of a life, or the justification above.

I completely agree with your assessment, though: I doubt she made this decision lightly.

The more one digs into this, the more inane the knee jerk policy seems to be, yes?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Thanks.. Glad my boss was not looking over my shoulder ...

I usually respect your opinions and comments on issues, but that was uncalled for ..
Apologies. Should have gone for an innocuous site. My bad, completely. :(

DR

[Skeptical Greg]

Noted.
An understandable mistake when taken with your explanation.

As you were..

[Nosi]

link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072)



See how the anti abortion crowd simply does not care about women?

Amen to that!:mad:

[Kopji]

Sorry, almost too busy to follow my own threads. :(

I'd wondered if the patient was a Catholic too. Not sure there is a way to find out or that it would matter much to me.

The concept of ethic review panels at hospitals is not new, but how they are implemented is not very standard. A fundamental goal though, is to provide a better level of confidence in difficult decisions. The implication is that a case is looked at not ignoring the fact that we all have certain biases, but to make a better decision acknowledging that those biases exist. If actions of the committee would get one of the members fired or demoted, that undermines the entire purpose of the process.

My point is not that Catholics don't have the right to be Catholics, but that this event illuminates a fundamental inferiority of the decision process in religion sponsored health care. If the idea of an ethics panel is to make better decisions by looking a problem from many perspectives and yes, biases - it needs to be done with a certain freedom if it is to result in a recommendation that is (presumably) in the best interest of the patient and their family.

If the ethics panel is just a rubber stamp for whatever the sponsoring religion is, then the panels do a disservice and should be dissolved. They are essentially a facade that makes the very different ethics decision process in a religious hospital look more like the ethics process in a secular one.

[TimCallahan]

What continues to perplex me about this case is that, had the fetus not been aborted, not only would the mother have died, so would the fetus. Since the fetus was doomed either way, clearly the abortion in this case was the pro-life action. Perhaps this twit of a bishop needs to engage with the real world.

When I hear stories of this sort I begin to think there aren't enough bullets in the world.