Nun excommunicated for saving a woman's life

LINK

Quote :

Nun at St. Joseph's Hospital rebuked over abortion to save woman

by Michael Clancy - May. 15, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

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.


Neither the hospital nor the bishop's office would address whether the bishop had a direct role in her demotion. He does not have control of the hospital as a business but is the voice of moral authority over any Catholic institution operating in the diocese.

The actions involving the administrator, mostly taken within the past couple of weeks, followed a last-minute, life-or-death drama in late 2009. The patient had a rare and often fatal condition in which a pregnancy can cause the death of the mother.

Sister Margaret McBride, who had been vice president of mission integration at the hospital, was on call as a member of the hospital's ethics committee when the surgery took place, hospital officials said. She was part of a group of people, including the patient and doctors, who decided upon the course of action.

The patient was not identified, and details of her case cannot be revealed under federal privacy laws.

The Catholic Church forbids abortion in all circumstances and allows the termination of a pregnancy only as a secondary effect of other treatments, such as radiation of a cancerous uterus.

The hospital defended the ethics committee's decision.

In a statement, Suzanne Pfister, a hospital vice president, said that the facility adheres to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services but that the directives do not answer all questions.

"In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother's life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy," Pfister said.

Pfister issued the four-paragraph statement on behalf of the hospital, its parent company Catholic Healthcare West, and the Sisters of Mercy, McBride's religious order.

McBride was part of the discussion about the surgery, described as urgent. It involved a serious illness, pulmonary hypertension. The condition limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function and is made worse, possibly even fatal, by pregnancy.

In a statement issued to The Republic late Friday, the diocese confirmed that Olmsted learned of the case after the surgery.

"I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese," Olmsted said. "I am further concerned by the hospital's statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother's underlying medical condition.

"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."

Olmsted added that if a Catholic "formally cooperates" in an abortion, he or she is automatically excommunicated.

Excommunication forbids the person from participating in church life. Remedies are available through an appeal to the Vatican or confession.

"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," the bishop said.

It is unknown whether the bishop took action against the others who were involved in the matter, and Pfister would not answer questions about the physicians involved in the surgery.

Neither Olmsted nor his spokesman at the Phoenix Diocese would answer additional questions.

Although Olmsted does not have direct control of the hospital, his authority as bishop over Catholic institutions is substantial. For one thing, religious orders work in the Valley at his invitation.

In an e-mail, Pfister said McBride has been transferred "to another position in the hospital to focus on a number of new strategic initiatives."

According to the medical directives that the hospital follows, abortion is defined as the directly intended termination of pregnancy, and it is not permitted under any circumstances - even to save the life of the mother.

On the other hand, a second directive says 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."

A letter sent Monday from Catholic Healthcare West, signed by Sister Judith Carle, board chairwoman, and President and CEO Lloyd Dean, asks Olmsted to provide further clarification about the directives. Agreeing that in a healthy mother, pregnancy is "not a pathology," it says this case was different. The pregnancy, the letter says, carried a nearly certain risk of death for the mother.

"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."

James J. Walter, professor of bioethics at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, a Catholic university, said that is a tough argument to make. He said a pregnancy may be terminated only in limited, indirect circumstances, such as uterine cancer, in which the cancer treatment takes the life of the fetus.

Catholic teaching, he said, is that a pregnancy cannot be terminated as a means to an end of saving the life of a mother who is suffering from a different condition.

Asked if the church position prefers the mother and child to die, rather than sparing the life of one of them, Walters said the hope is that both would survive.

Not all faith groups see things the same way. The Jewish tradition, the Mormon Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are among the groups that frown on abortion on demand but permit it when the life of the mother is at stake or if the mother is impregnated by rape or incest.

McBride declined to be interviewed. She was the highest-ranking member of the Sisters of Mercy at the hospital, which the order founded in 1895.

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix has a history of this sort of behavior. Complete with homosexual priest purges witch hunts in the double-digit numbers. Like any good witch hunt, the innocent are condemned with the guilty.

Compared to the other big issue of the catholic church, this becomes especially distasteful. As one commentator put it, this once again confirms the misogyny within the institution.

So much fail. Does this bishop (who is obviously not a doctor) have the faintest clue that if the pregnancy had not been terminated, the mother probably would have died, taking the far too young to survive outside the womb fetus with her? The outcome would have been the same for the fetus whether it was terminated or not, but continuing the pregnancy would have resulted in a dead mother as well as a dead fetus, benefiting exactly no one.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Lady Anne wrote:

So much fail. Does this bishop (who is obviously not a doctor) have the faintest clue that if the pregnancy had not been terminated, the mother probably would have died, taking the far too young to survive outside the womb fetus with her? The outcome would have been the same for the fetus whether it was terminated or not, but continuing the pregnancy would have resulted in a dead mother as well as a dead fetus, benefiting exactly no one.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I'm still in two minds as to whether this is a bishop being retarded about medical fact (possible), or whether he genuinely believes that "killing a baby" is so wrong that it's better for the woman to die. It's probably a case of a bit of both.

The dead mother would mean she's in the arms of God with her baby. Or something. Probably.

I have been waiting for this to show up. If anyone's curious, the Diocese's position statement is available here.

I was fairly sure I disagreed with this decision before I read that statement, but after reading it, I'm absolutely sure. They essentially say "The hospital should have treated the underlying condition and if that treatment resulted in the death of the child, then at least we didn't kill her directly." Which is a pretty horrible cop-out, I feel. This child was eleven weeks old. She wasn't nearly old enough to survive if delivered and then placed in NICU care. Either way, the child ends up dead, and while the exact details of this situation haven't been released, all the reports I've read (from both sides, by the way) sound like this pregnancy was severely threatening the mother's life. To the point where she probably couldn't have carried long enough to give the kid even a 50% chance of surviving if she were delivered early.

I really don't feel this decision is moral, ethical, or logical on the part of the Catholics. Is it tragic that these situations happen? Certainly. But they do, and sometimes you can only save one person.

Question for you, Kel: is it possible to sack a bishop? Do you think this would be a sackable offence, as you seem to agree that his decision is thoroughly unjustifiable?

ZoZo wrote:

Question for you, Kel: is it possible to sack a bishop? Do you think this would be a sackable offence, as you seem to agree that his decision is thoroughly unjustifiable?

I would imagine that, if it is possible to fire a bishop, the decision would have to come from higher up in the Catholic hierarchy. IIRC, the only two higher offices are Cardinal and then Pope. So in this case, even assuming the higher ups don't agree with him (which I doubt is the case), it would probably be fairly difficult for him to be dismissed.

Bear in mind, all of the above is only a semi-educated guess. I'm not Catholic, so someone who is would have a better notion of the answer.

As to whether it's a "sackable offense"...honestly, I'm not sure. The hospital has already done the abortion and saved one their patients' lives. So at this point, all of the bishop's actions are reactionary. If he were willing to listen to reason, and to apologize for his actions, no, I wouldn't think so. If not...maybe. I would at least discuss it, assuming I were involved. Thankfully, I am not and don't have to deal with that particular drama.

Unless things have changed since I regularly went to church, abortion is considered a sin worthy of excommunication within the Catholic Church, regardless of circumstances. Providing an abortion, or supporting the choice by another person is considered equally as sinful.

This is only the official doctrine from the Vatican (unless things have changed). Quite a few practicing Catholics feel much differently.

I was raised a Catholic... a good thing I left. This bishop has no logic. It's less evil to let two people die than to abort one to save the other? Give me a break.
In other words:

[insert shitty macro here]

Nihilist wrote:

Olmstead really tried to cover this up, and considering his stance... it's all a goddamn cop-out.

Covering stuff up to preserve the appearance of righteous living? Yeah, I'd never think the Church would do that for a thing like, say, child molestation by priests. :saleha:

Khajidu wrote:

It's less evil to let two people die than to abort one to save the other? Give me a break.

Yeah. I'm anti-abortion for pretty much the same reasons as Kel, but honestly? If I was pregnant and it came down to a situation where it was either my baby dying or me and the baby dying... yeah, I'd choose the former option. Would I feel like a life had been lost? Yes. Would I feel like shit about it? Hell yes. Would I still choose a termination of the pregnancy? Yes.

This brings up two important points:

1) Was the mother's condition so immediate that a decision had to be made on the spot, or was it something that had been ongoing and just came to a head all of a sudden?

2) Did anyone ask her what she wanted? Was she in a position to make that decision (i.e. not unconscious) at the time? Did she know the ramifications of said decision?

^Good points, Eileen. Especially the second one.

Technically, if her wish was to keep the pregnancy regardless of the possible consequences, then such a wish should be respected.

I wouldn't rate this news as godawful, y'know. It is sad that the fetus could not be saved, but the nun chose to at least save the mother instead of claiming objection of conscience or such.
I haven't figured out however how she was in a position in which such an accident may occur... it's like being a Jehova's witness and working in the emergency room as a nurse. Sooner or later you'll have to do a blood transfusion!

EileenK98, I think the article has it with:

Quote :

She was part of a group of people, including the patient and doctors, who decided upon the course of action

Quite succinct, but I take it to mean the woman was conscious and gave her informed consent to the surgery.

The Unoriginal wrote:

I wouldn't rate this news as godawful, y'know. It is sad that the fetus could not be saved, but the nun chose to at least save the mother instead of claiming objection of conscience or such.

I'm pretty sure it's godawful because the Nun got excommunicated, not because the fetus died.

Excommunication is an automatic ticket to hell, in the eyes of the church. And remember, only women are excommunicated for abortion. The family can approve too, but it's the owner of the womb who gets the flack. Here's a good one. It's basically what the Bishop is saying to the nun:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

BURN, BABY! BURN!

*dances*

BURN, BABY! BURN! Burn in hell, yeah, BURN, BABY! BURN! You're gonna go to hell and BURN, BABY! BURN! If you raped a kid you'd be fine but approving abortion means you BURN, BABY! BURN!

I like that. Let's write a song.

*starts to dance*

BURN, BABY! BURN!
Oh yeah, BURN, BABY! BURN!
Abortion's evil so BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

Now you can kill a man, or rape a child,
And the church will cover it all up and let you run wild,
Fuck your dog! Be a pedophile!
But if you don't like unborn life you'd better wait a while, or you'll

BURN, BABY! BURN!
In hell forever!
BURN, BABY! BURN!
I got the right to judge ya!
BURN, BABY! BURN!
I'm like a god, yeah!
BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

You can be a homosexual and they won't mind,
As long as it's a sickness you deny,
Abuse small children, take a bribe,
So Republicans give you that feel-good vibe,

But BURN, BABY! BURN!
If you approve abortion,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
Worse than extortion,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
You've no redemption,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

A nine year old, who will die,
Because her step-pappy raped her, it's no lie,
Save her life, and go to hell!
Maybe you'll see babies burning there as well,

BURN, BABY! BURN!
You did the wrong thing,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
I sense you burning,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
You should be raping,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

And now a nun, who had to choose,
Between two lives or one, and had to lose,
She's gonna go, to hell you see,
While priests are up in heaven defiling me,

BURN, BABY! BURN!
Your dicks can be in heads,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
But wombs are so sacred,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
If you cause one to be dead,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

BURN, BABY! BURN!
Oh yeah, that's right,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
It's 1692, time to smite,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
Fires lighting up the night,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

Abortion is the unforgivable crime,
Though rape is a great thing to pull every time,
Save a woman's life and you're evil of course,
You really should stick to taking children by force,

BURN, BABY! BURN!
I own your body,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
I judge, not Goddy,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
Now where's my money?
BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

*repeat to fade*

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Being excommunicated is kind of like saying to somebody who's served the church all their life, "We, human beings, have decided you're going to hell."

[...]

But this nun consulted with family, doctors and other ethical commitees, and then, fully informed, made a difficult decision. And will now burn in hell for all eternity, because the bishop has the power to sentence her to hell.

Not even the Pope can sentence anyone to hell as only God has the authority to pass this type of judgement. Being excommunicated is actually a favour that the Church does to you after you've screwed up badly, since taking the Communion while in a state of sin is a sin itself.
This for the theological part. As per the

Quote :

"An unborn child is not a disease.

Except in the case of ectopic pregnancies, in the case of which long-bearded philosophers have pondered the matter and decided that out of the three possible treatments, all equally resulting in the death of the foetus, two are not morally acceptable while the third is, as the death of the foetus is an 'indirect' consequence of the intervention and the procedure 'not only has an intended good effect but is good in itself'. Sorry, buddies, these subtle distinctions fly right over the laymen's head, they make you seem cavillous and uncaring, and alienate your flock.

Aw, you quoted a post I deleted in favour of a song.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

BURN, BABY! BURN!

*dances*

BURN, BABY! BURN! Burn in hell, yeah, BURN, BABY! BURN! You're gonna go to hell and BURN, BABY! BURN! If you raped a kid you'd be fine but approving abortion means you BURN, BABY! BURN!

I like that. Let's write a song.

*starts to dance*

BURN, BABY! BURN!
Oh yeah, BURN, BABY! BURN!
Abortion's evil so BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

Now you can kill a man, or rape a child,
And the church will cover it all up and let you run wild,
Fuck your dog! Be a pedophile!
But if you don't like unborn life you'd better wait a while, or you'll

BURN, BABY! BURN!
In hell forever!
BURN, BABY! BURN!
I got the right to judge ya!
BURN, BABY! BURN!
I'm like a god, yeah!
BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

You can be a homosexual and they won't mind,
As long as it's a sickness you deny,
Abuse small children, take a bribe,
So Republicans give you that feel-good vibe,

But BURN, BABY! BURN!
If you approve abortion,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
Worse than extortion,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
You've no redemption,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

A nine year old, who will die,
Because her step-pappy raped her, it's no lie,
Save her life, and go to hell!
Maybe you'll see babies burning there as well,

BURN, BABY! BURN!
You did the wrong thing,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
I sense you burning,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
You should be raping,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

And now a nun, who had to choose,
Between two lives or one, and had to lose,
She's gonna go, to hell you see,
While priests are up in heaven defiling me,

BURN, BABY! BURN!
Your dicks can be in heads,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
But wombs are so sacred,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
If you cause one to be dead,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

BURN, BABY! BURN!
Oh yeah, that's right,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
It's 1692, time to smite,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
Fires lighting up the night,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

Abortion is the unforgivable crime,
Though rape is a great thing to pull every time,
Save a woman's life and you're evil of course,
You really should stick to taking children by force,

BURN, BABY! BURN!
I own your body,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
I judge, not Goddy,
BURN, BABY! BURN!
Now where's my money?
BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!
BURN, BABY! BURN!

*repeat to fade*

This is made of win.

Quote :

"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."

Clump of cells = more important than a live, grown woman. IGNORE THE BIT WHERE IF THE WOMAN DIES THE CLUMP OF CELLS DIES TOO

Quote :

Asked if the church position prefers the mother and child to die, rather than sparing the life of one of them, Walters said the hope is that both would survive.

HA HA HA HA

KelinciHutan wrote:

This child was eleven weeks old. She wasn't nearly old enough to survive if delivered and then placed in NICU care.

lol "child"

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

HOMPH HOMPH HORK I'M A STUPID ASSHOLE

Cyberwulf, fuck off.

Lady Anne wrote:

This is made of win.

You just told Harley that one of her shittacular songs is made of win.

Take a sabbatical. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Is there some... taboo on being nice about anything I do? You know regardless of what it may be, it's still imperarative that everybody insults me?

Yes, because once anything you do seems worthy of a nice comment, it's time to get some goddamn fresh air.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

"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."

Clump of cells = more important than a live, grown woman. IGNORE THE BIT WHERE IF THE WOMAN DIES THE CLUMP OF CELLS DIES TOO

To state that this fetus was a mere "clump of cells" is pretty erroneous (unless you want to go the route that we're all, technically speaking, just "clumps of cells"). Fetuses at this stage have heartbeats, and are developing fingernails and external genitals.

Quote :

About now the rapid "swooshing" noises of the heartbeat can be heard through a
Doppler sound-wave stethoscope. Fingernails and external genitalia are showing
distinguishing characteristics, and the baby is swallowing and kicking,
although you still won't feel it.

(From this site.)

Cyberwulf wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

This child was eleven weeks old. She wasn't nearly old enough to survive if delivered and then placed in NICU care.

lol "child"

Wow. :picard: What about the mother's point of view, here? What if she considered this to be her child, which unfortunately could not be kept alive and gestating? Do you honestly think that this was as easy for her to do as trim her fucking nails and sweep the trimmings into the trash? You can't devalue her pain and the extreme difficulty of her situation by basically saying that her child was NOT her child and was just a "clump of cells" that had no value.

What happened here was the most humane choice that could be made under the circumstances. That is not in question for me. But I don't understand why you have to devalue the fetus in question by calling it a 'clump of cells', (after all, the image conveyed by that is of a shapless blob with no human characteristics, which is NOT the case here) and laughing at Kel's (or someone's) description of it as a 'child'. If I was at this stage of pregnancy, it WOULD be my child and my partner's child. And to this woman, perhaps she called this fetus her "child", which did not survive. To devalue that is, to me, to devalue her feelings and the incredible grief she is perhaps feeling right now.

I don't believe the woman found this easy at all, especially if she wanted to keep the baby. But the main big deal is the increasing amount of control the Catholic church has over people's lives in America.

Whenever I feel depressed, I go here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

(Not reccomended for Americans)

Chaltab wrote:

Cyberwulf, fuck off.

Any particular reason, shitstick?

Malganis wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

"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."

Clump of cells = more important than a live, grown woman. IGNORE THE BIT WHERE IF THE WOMAN DIES THE CLUMP OF CELLS DIES TOO

To state that this fetus

The person I quoted was speaking generally, and so was I.

Quote :

Fetuses at this stage have heartbeats, and are developing fingernails and external genitals.

Lovely. Doesn't mean they have personhood. Doesn't mean their "right" to be born outweighs a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Quote :

Cyberwulf wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

This child was eleven weeks old. She wasn't nearly old enough to survive if delivered and then placed in NICU care.

lol "child"

Wow. What about the mother's point of view, here?

Who said anything about the mother's point of view? I'm talking about Kel insisting on calling a foetus a child. A foetus is a foetus. An embryo is an embryo. A baby is a baby.

Quote :

Do you honestly think that this was as easy for her to do as trim her fucking nails and sweep the trimmings into the trash?

You're asking me that? After all the times I've argued in favour of a woman's right to choose by attacking that very notion?

Quote :

But I don't understand why you have to devalue the fetus in question by calling it a 'clump of cells'

I don't understand why you have to arbitrarily confer personhood on the foetus when it has nothing to do with you.

Quote :

and laughing at Kel's (or someone's) description of it as a 'child'.

FIFY

Quote :

If I was at this stage of pregnancy, it WOULD be my child and my partner's child.

Exactly. It would mean something to YOU, because it's a wanted, perhaps much longed-for, pregnancy. My problem is when people who aren't fucking involved in the creation of said foetus start referring to all embryos and foetuses as "children". It's a short step from that to abortion = murder and from there to - oh look, the Catholic Church's very stance! The one you're ostensibly criticising.

Quote :

To devalue that is, to me, to devalue her feelings and the incredible grief she is perhaps feeling right now.

My God you're right! Henceforth I will refer to all embryos and foetuses as "children" because to do otherwise is to devalue grieving mothers. Never mind that doing so heaps guilt on women who've had abortions.