Posted on 05/18/2010 9:52:44 AM PDT by topher
Monday May 17, 2010Bishop Says Nun is Automatically Excommunicated for Rubberstamping Hospital Abortion
By Peter J. Smith PHOENIX, Arizona, May 17, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) The Bishop of Phoenix has announced that a Catholic nun and administrator of St. Josephs Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix has automatically excommunicated herself by approving an abortion on a woman who was 11-weeks pregnant, and whose life hospital officials allege they were trying to save. Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted said the excommunications apply to all involved, and lambasted the hospitals defense of their decision by comparing the ill womans unborn child to a disease that needed to be removed. The Arizona Republic reports that in late 2009, Sister Margaret McBride, then vice president of mission integration at St. Josephs, joined the hospitals ethics committee in determining that doctors and the hospital would be morally justified in performing a direct abortion in the first trimester, because they felt that the mothers life was at risk. The woman, whose identity is anonymous, was reportedly seriously ill with pulmonary hypertension. The hospital has two directives relating to abortion, as reported by the Republic. The first says that physicians cannot perform direct abortions under any circumstances, including for such reasons as to save the life of the mother. A second directive adds, however, that "operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted ... even if they will result in the death of the unborn child." This directive is based on the Catholic philosophical principle of double effect, which says that if the treatment sought addresses the direct causes of the womans health condition (such as radiation treatment for cancer), but never intends to kill the unborn child (even though that may happen as a secondary, but unintended, effect of the lifesaving treatment), then it is morally licit. Hospital officials claimed that they were following the second directive by aborting the baby. But Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted said in a statement provided to the Republic that he was gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese, and furthermore said he was appalled by the hospitals twisted reasoning that justified the direct abortion by reducing the unborn child to a disease. An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means," the prelate said. Olmsted made clear that McBride and all Catholics who had formal cooperation in the womans abortion of her child, were automatically excommunicated from the Church. "The Catholic Church will continue to defend life and proclaim the evil of abortion without compromise, and must act to correct even her own members if they fail in this duty," Olmsted declared. McBride has since been demoted from her position, and transferred by the hospital to another area of administration. Catholic Healthcare West, which oversees St. Josephs hospital, sent a letter to Olmsted Monday defending McBrides and the hospitals actions. "If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it," the letter says. "We are convinced there was not." However, Dr. Paul A. Byrne, Director of Neonatology and Pediatrics at St. Charles Mercy Hospital in Toledo, Ohio, disputes the claim that an abortion is ever a procedure necessary to save the life of the mother, or carries less risk than birth. In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Byrne said, I dont know of any [situation where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother]. I know that a lot of people talk about these things, but I dont know of any. The principle always is preserve and protect the life of the mother and the baby. Byrne has the distinction of being a pioneer in the field of neonatology, beginning his work in the field in 1963 and becoming a board-certified neonatologist in 1975. He invented one of the first oxygen masks for babies, an incubator monitor, and a blood-pressure tester for premature babies, which he and a colleague adapted from the finger blood pressure checkers used for astronauts. Byrne emphasized that he was not commentating on what the womans particular treatment should have been under the circumstances, given that she is not his patient. But given just pulmonary hypertension, the answer is no to abortion, said Byrne. Byrne emphasized that the unborn child at 11 weeks gestation would have a negligible impact on the womans cardiovascular system. He said that pregnancy in the first and second trimesters would not expose a woman with even severe pulmonary hypertension which puts stress on the heart and the longs to any serious danger. A pregnant mothers cardiovascular system does have major increases, but they only happen in the last three months of pregnancy, Byrne explained. The point of fetal viability is estimated at anywhere between 21 - 24 weeks, he indicated, at which point a baby can artificially be delivered and have a good shot at surviving. In the meantime the mothers pulmonary hypertension could be treated, even by such simple things as eliminating salt from her diet, exercising, or losing weight. Its not going to be any extra stress on the mother that she cant stand, said Byrne. Eventually you get to where the baby gets big enough that the baby can live outside the uterus and you dont have to do an abortion. I am only aware of good things happening by doing that. I am not aware of anything bad happening to the mother because the baby was allowed to live. The only reason to kill the baby at 11 weeks is because it is smaller, which makes the abortion easier to perform, he said, not because the mothers life is in immediate danger. Ive done this work just about as long as neonatology has existed, said Byrne. The key is we must protect and preserve life, and we have to do that from conception to the natural end.
Catholic Healthcare West Phone: (415) 438-5500 Click here to contact CHW electronically. To contact Bishop Thomas Olmsted: Diocese of Phoenix |
Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.
The article states that treatments such as chemotherapy are allowed to save the mother's life (but may result in the death of the unborn). However, an unborn cannot be directly killed, i.e., aborted "as a means of saving the mother's life".
This is the key point of the article: that a baby cannot be aborted directly, but that the Catholic Hospital can provide medical treatment (such as chemo) which will save the mother's life. This might indirectly end the unborn's life, but the point is to try to save one life.
What the bishop said was very wrong was to kill the baby with the hope that it will somehow help the mother's life (which may or may not help depending on the medical condition).
Hospital officials claimed that they were following the second directive by aborting the baby.
This is only true in a pig's eye.
An medical doctor further down in the article refutes the above statement saying that an unborn child at 11 weeks has minimal impact on the cardiovascular system of the mother...
This is Dr. Byne who refutes the cliams of the Catholic Hospital in Phoenix...
Good Job - Bishop Olmsted. This IS a big deal.
So many destructive (and un-Catholic things) are rationalized away by clergy and lay people with emotional, politically expedient, socially-safe - and specious arguments. Time to draw a line.
Sounds like the Jack Bauer approach. Refreshing.
Bravo to the bishop for doing his job! Would to God that all bishops were as faithful.
From a philosophical perspective, Natural Law, as a principle, is not concerned with secondary affects. It looks at an action in keeping with moral absolutes.
Some see this as a weakness of Natural Law, but whatever moral or ethical standard that you choose, you should be consistent.
I am very suspicious that the hospital didn’t offer any comparison as to the health risks to the mother in having an abortion procedure performed on her versus carrying the baby to term. There also was no explanation offered as to what health risk carrying the baby to term with respect to her heart condition whatsoever.
And let me add this: Those who wish to criticize the Catholic Church’s position that the baby’s life is preferred over the mother’s should bear in mind that this policy is long-standing.
If one does not wish to abide this policy, it is quite simple: LEAVE THE CHURCH or expect to be expelled. Don’t try to force the church to abide your lifestyle choices. Free association and all that.
She’s still a sister. She’s a sister who is an excommunicated Catholic, and needs to formally repent in the presence of Bishop Olmstead.
but in doing this, they totally disregarded the first directive--no abortions... so glad this is found to be unacceptable... can you imagine this slippery slope?
There really is no such policy.
The teaching is actually very simple: you can't deliberately intend to kill an innocent person, even to save the life of another. Babies are innocent people, therefore (etc.).
It is sometimes morally permissible to take some act intended to save the mother's life, even if that act inadvertently causes the child's death. It is never permissible to deliberately, intentionally kill the child (or the mother) for any reason.
What about an ectopic pregnancy?
You cannot directly kill the unborn.
But the unborn will grow and burst the fallopian tube, possibly killing both the mother and baby.
What can be done (which according to Father Peter West was approved by the Roman Catholic Church) was that the Fallopian tube is removed.
The baby dies a "form of a natural death". The baby does not continue to "theathen the life of the mother by growing.
Incidently, it was quite commonly known that a major cause of ecotopic pregnancy was because of a prior abortion -- the surgical "scraping" within the womb would do damage to the fallopian tubes/uterus.
If I ran into her on the street, how would I know she was a Roman Catholic nun?
If she wore a cross, then maybe I might think she might be a nun...
I meant to mention that in the previous post, and it was as a part of question/answer session on abortion/pro-life that he gave at St Michael's Catholic Church in Gaineville, Georgia...
Well done, good and faithful servant! Now, if we can get the bishops of Pelosi, Reid, Kerry and the Kennedy family to follow suit!
As Topher alluded to, it's called the principle of double effect. Basically it goes like this: you cannot do an intrinsically evil act to achieve a good end, but you can do an acceptable act in order to achieve that good, minimizing the chances of a bad side effect, but if that bad side effect happens, then it is acceptable.
In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, you are not aborting the baby, you are removing the inflamed and swollen fallopian tube that might burst, which would, in all likelihood kill both mother and baby if not removed. Unfortunately, there is a baby inside of that fallopian tube. Currently, technology does not exist that will allow that baby to survive the removal of the fallopian tube, but we can pray that medical science will find a way to allow that to happen in the future.
In other words, you are treating the mother and, with technology the way it is, the chances are extreme that the baby will not survive.
If medical science was funded in a true pro-life fashion, they would be working on a technique to allow the baby to somehow survive. But I doubt that medical science is even looking in that direction.
Why does he not excommunicate the “Devout Catholic” Politicians that approve of abortions?
Because he is not their bishop.
**************************
Exactly right. That's the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.