[GladesGuru]

I see a profound ethical contradiction here. This was a woman in whom society had invested a great deal of time, money and effort to train her in her profession. Additionally, she was clearly a practioner who was dedicated to her patients.

Factor in the three children now left to grow up without both a mother, and the example she set in her daily life and her professional practice, and her willingness to leave three children, And a newborn infant, without a mother rather than act responsibly towards the three already in existance - and I reluctantly must conclude she acted in a less than responsible manner.

While generally pro-life, I am uneasy with canonizing such behavior.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I see your point, and I agree in regards to planning future pregnancies. If a woman knew she could die it would be unethical to attempt to conceive again and potentially leave already living children motherless, IMO.

This situation seems contradictory though. She did have treatment; removal of the fibroma. A lot of times those are not cancerous and she did die of an infection after the birth. Was the initial surgery a success although dangerous? The story is confusing to me.

[Axenolith]

You can not extrapolate hypothetical unpleasantness to inevitable killing. While the living may have suffered hardship, or been somewhat deprived of certain people or things, they lived, and had chances, and choices they could make. Killing one to merely hedge the hypothesis of a better life for the associated living would be morally wrong...

[fr_freak]

I see a profound ethical contradiction here. This was a woman in whom society had invested a great deal of time, money and effort to train her in her profession. Additionally, she was clearly a practioner who was dedicated to her patients.

Factor in the three children now left to grow up without both a mother, and the example she set in her daily life and her professional practice, and her willingness to leave three children, And a newborn infant, without a mother rather than act responsibly towards the three already in existance - and I reluctantly must conclude she acted in a less than responsible manner.

First, I would not credit society with something this woman achieved for herself. Society did not provide Gianna with the will, drive, and persistence necessary to achieve her medical degree. This was something she achieved on her own. She owes "society" nothing in that regard.

However, even if her way through school were paid by "society", though I've seen nothing to indicate it was, what would you consider the debt she then owed? Would a few years of excellent service be enough? Many years? Or would the life of one patient she saved be worth the money spent? In her case, it sounds like she gave all these things.

I can tell you one thing she did not owe society, and that was her soul, the character of which is determined by the values that are faithfully followed. To abandon one of her most basic beliefs, that the life of an unborn child is sacred, for some needs defined by imperfect men on earth rather than adhere to them for a duty set down by God, would have been a rejection of those values. And, as far as the loss of her example in daily and professional life goes, think of the far greater example she has set now. She went from being a role model for one's daily conduct, to a role model in the conduct of one's life in general and, more importantly, advanced the idea of the sanctity of human life by quite a leap.

I would also remind you that this woman did not choose to die; she simply chose to take the path least risky to her child, a path which was unfortunately also the most risky to herself, and left the rest in God's hands.

[KeepRight]

I think that saving the life of a child is more important than "acting responsibly" in the eyes of the world. A life for one person is more important than a mother for three - it might seem odd to say something like that, I suppose, but life really is that important.

[JudyB1938]

What a great story. That's how most people (especially Catholics) felt back in those days though - that the baby's life should be saved over the mother's if the choice ever had to be made. I, however, believed as you do - that it was more important for the existing children to keep their mama. Fortunately, I never had to make that choice with any of my six children.

I loved the following comment in the story, because it exactly describes my wonderful Dr. Reddy in Clinton, Arkansas ...

"Remember that you have to deal not only with the bodies,
but also the moaning souls coming to you."

They don't make many doctors like that any more.

[LadyDoc]

see my note (above).

She was canonized for her good life.

[Salvation]

She acted responsibly towards all life.

[Old Professer]

This was a woman in whom society had invested a great deal of time, money and effort to train her in her profession

Society is a figment of weak hearts.