Sunday, November 30, 2008

The Lethal Insanity of Absolute Morality

This does not confer a medical degree.


The following is a comment written by a doctor and illustrates what happens when clerical folks who aren't medically educated apply their absolutist morality to specific situations. They become abusive and this abuse can kill.


"I have never advocated elective abortion and never participated in one, yet I as a scientist can not agree with the Bishops about what constitutes an elective abortion. I worked with a patient that was told by a recently trained priest that the Bishop would excommunicate her if she went ahead with a D&C for an inevitable abortion.


She was running a fever in a very early pregnancy and it was determined by her gynecologist that the products of conception were badly infected. He told her correctly that this was a life threatening problem and she required an immediate D&C. Instead of going right to the hospital, my patient stopped to talk to her pastor. (Oh the poor woman.)


When he heard the term inevitable abortion, he became angry and told my patient that inevitable abortions do not exist. He then told her if she had the D&C that he would report her to the Bishop for excommunication. (Inevitable abortions used to be called spontaneous miscarriages. When the infected fetus doesn't spontaneously abort it decays, as all dead things do, and septicemia results. This is a very life threatening condition. This young priest is totally out of his league and threatening excommunication over a dead and infected fetus is clerical malpractice.)


She then called me and I called the chancery and was told by the Monsignor in charge that there was no reason to take this to the Bishop as the Bishop would back his priest. I explained to him that this was the same as a miscarriage, that the fetus was certainly dead and that my patient might well die without the D&C.


He asked me if I had ever heard of antibiotics. I told him that she would need intravenous antibiotics as well as a D&C as her fetus had become an abscess in her uterus. He told me there was nothing he could do. (Nothing except tell a medical practitioner how to practice medicine and back the boys in black.)


I explained to him that I was a graduate of a Catholic medical school and that I had never before run across a Bishop or priests that actually tried to practice medicine without a license and that my patient probably would die if she took their advice and that if asked I would help the husband sue all the clerics involved when that happened. (The truth is the Church has been using absolutist stands on abortion and birth control as a means of controlling women's reproductive issues. They have been defacto practicing gynecology strictly from a moral position while ignoring any other medical or scientific point of view.)


I then called her husband, a teacher at a Catholic HS, and discussed the problem with him. Apparently the monsignor had second thoughts and telephoned the patient and after a conversation told her that he did not think she should have a D&C but that she would not be excommunicated if she had it. The husband was furious with the pastor and the Bishop. (It's quite a sad statement that only the threat of lawyers ever works with the boys in black. I couldn't help but notice the monsignor only backed off the excommunication issue, his medical advice was still in effect.)


Fortunately, this couple decided to follow good medical advice and the lady met her Gynecologist in the hospital and had her procedure. She spent 3 days afterward in the ICU in shock from her infection after the procedure, but the outcome was finally OK.


These men in the Episcopacy must stop to take a serious look at where all the doctrinaire preaching is leading. They have little ability to understand science or medicine, yet they pronounce what they believe to be infallible statements about this field. They tell women that to take Birth Control pills causes abortions, they tell partners of HIV positive spouses or boyfriends that condoms allow the virus through (The World Health Association has proven the opposite to be true.) (And this iventifacted advice kills people by the millions.)


Bishops have little understanding of embryology. Yet they make these pseudo-infallible statements about Abortions. Let's be clear, an abortion can not occur unless there is implantation in the uterus. From 60 to 80 percent of all fertilized ova never implant. After an ovum is fertilized it becomes a structure that is known as a blastocoel. Most of these structures never survive. They are like seeds trying to find a fertile spot to germinate and like most seeds, most blastocoels never have a chances to implant or germinate. (The silence on this one fact about implantation is deafening because it means birth control pills and morning after pills are not abortifacients. Without implantation a blastocoel is not viable human life.)


The Bishops recently fail to understand that many of the blastoceols that do implant and form embryos do not develop properly and undergo what physicians call a spontaneous abortion. These abortions used to be understood as miscarriages by the clerics, but they are now counted in the the Bishops’ abortions statistics. (If the bishops are going to add spontaneous abortions to abortion statistics they better get on it and excommunicate God.)


***********************************************************


This is just one egregious example of abortion absolutism being taken to a potentially lethal end.

We could see some really interesting things come about if this same absolutism is taken to it's logical end with regards to marriage.


If the hierarchy really wants to protect the tradition of marriage as a unit of procreation then instead of limiting themselves to gay marriage and adoption, they need to go all the way.


They should be starting initiatives in which couples who cannot pass adoption standards should not be allowed to marry and have children. If you can't adopt you can't procreate. It goes without saying that if you can't procreate at all you can't get married. There for no woman past menopause should be allowed to marry.


What if we really got serious about traditional marriage, just like the clerics mentioned above got serious about abortion. Here's one example of how this all might play out.


A teenager like Bristol Palin would not be allowed to marry her baby's father in that he has publicly stated he doesn't want any "f'ng" children. This couple would not pass the adoption standard, so no marriage for them. As an unmarried single woman her baby would be taken by the state for it's own good until suitable parents could be found.


Bristol's own parents would not be suitable because the father is unemployed, the mother is never home, and they already have three other underage children one of whom is special needs. Additionally, as parents, they have already proven they are patently incapable of teaching appropriate sexual ethics to their own children. So no adoption for them. Say good bye to your baby Bristol, because after all, this is all for it's own good.


Sound crazy? It's not really, it's just the logical extension of the absolute position on traditional marriage. It's no crazier than some young priest telling a woman who needs a D and C to remove a dead decaying fetus that she will be excommunicated if she does so.


If it's a moral imperative to protect the rights of the unborn by allowing the quite dead to kill the mother, it also makes sense to protect the moral imperative of traditional marriage by taking babies from teenage mothers, refusing to marry them, and adopting the child out to some perfectly defined perfect family. It's the moral thing to do. The fact it's cruel and mostly insane has nothing to with it. Jesus weeps.

11 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It just goes to prove what I have been saying all along ... most of the bishops are criminals who belong in prison, not leading the church.

    The sooner we put them where they belong, the sooner the church can become a church again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't know Carl, I'm thinking I might do some more posts on clerical malpractice.

    This story is the kind of thing that happens all too frequently. Until we as laity are willing to force some sanity into the hierarchy, in some respects we bring this stuff on ourselves.

    We need to start becoming each other's keeper, as this story amply demonstrates, because the heirarchy has certainly proven they care far more about the 'infallibility' of the dogma than it's real life effects on real people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church(nor has it been) that the life of the mother of a child who has died in her womb is to be forfeited.

    This is simply not true.

    It is not possible to tell from your story what the facts are and what they are not, regardless of what you have related.

    If this "doctor" was educated in a Catholic medical institution, he/she would already know what has been related is NOT CONSISTENT with what is taught and practiced by the Catholic Church.

    "This young priest is totally out of his league and threatening excommunication over a dead and infected fetus is clerical malpractice."

    It is not possible to relate precisely what was actually said to the "young priest". Thus we cannot know what his understanding of the situation was and "clerical malpractice" is in itself, possibly "rash judgment" on the part of the blogger here.

    What we have is the result of, apparently, this "doctor's" presumptions regarding what is taught and practiced by the Catholic Church and the complication of its "possible" misunderstanding(s) by those in crisis, the priests and the mother.

    I see no instance of medical practice without a license in this circumstance. I see intensely
    important issues being decided, almost instantaneously among people with incomplete information on all sides. This type of circumstance is bound to create misunderstandings and frustrations and worse.

    It is my understanding that failure to "spontaneously abort" upon the death of an unborn child is quite rare. Thus it would be necessary to understand the full circumstances in order to make a rational decision regarding the ethics/morals of any particular course of action.

    This posting appears to be merely a diatribe insulting the Catholic Church and those who defend it somehow are the "haters".


    Nevertheless, it was wise and consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church that the woman, in this terrible, both life-threatening and heartbreaking circumstance received the care that she did.

    The further "pontificating" of this "doctor" is false regarding their "little ability to understand science or medicine, yet they pronounce what they believe to be infallible statements about this field."

    The teachings of the Catholic Church are well based in sound science as well as long standing Catholic theology. They are not opposed. It is the self-serving who endeavor to make it appear that way.

    "After an ovum is fertilized it becomes a structure that is known as a blastocoel. Most of these structures never survive. They are like seeds trying to find a fertile spot to germinate and like most seeds, most blastocoels never have a chances to implant or germinate."

    This is scientific mumbo-jumbo.
    It is the "abuse" of terminology to justify "murder".

    There is nothing problematic with using very specific terms to make knowledge understandable. It does not, however, alter the reality that a union of an egg and sperm is a separate and distinct human being, whether that human(blastocoel) "implants" or does not.

    To intend to interfere with that implantation, in a manner that is not an integral part of the ongoing natural process, is murder, even though it may not accurately be described by the term "abortion".

    It does not matter. Murder is murder.

    The author of this blog is disingenuous and deliberately inflammatory.

    ReplyDelete
  5. lead
    "After an ovum is fertilized it becomes a structure that is known as a blastocoel. Most of these structures never survive. They are like seeds trying to find a fertile spot to germinate and like most seeds, most blastocoels never have a chances to implant or germinate."

    This is scientific mumbo-jumbo.
    It is the "abuse" of terminology to justify "murder".


    Where is the factual error?

    Incidentally, an article by Toby Ord in The American Journal of Bioethics
    (www.amirrorclear.net/academic/papers/scourge.pdf) makes an interesting case for inconsistency in claims about the moral status of the conceptus.

    Given the high rate of natural embryo death (45% to 75%) (more than 200 million deaths per year), he asks why this is not considered a scourge deserving of resources to find a cure commensurate with those devoted to cancer, which has 1/10th the death rate.

    The author concludes that since almost nothing is done to address the issue, it must be the de-facto case that the embryo has something less than full moral status.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I might see the inflammatory accusation, but not the disingenous. It is a scientific fact that a blastocoel is not viable human life until it implants in the uterus, and as you write. interference with implantation, whether natural or not, does not constitute abortion.

    I happen to think this distinction is a crucial aspect in the abortion/birth control debate if only because the natural process itself results in hundreds of millions of failed pregnancies. As Antonio Manetti quotes from his cited article: "he asks why this is not considered a scourge deserving of resources to find a cure commensurate with those devoted to cancer, which has 1/10th the death rate."

    What I think this story demonstrates is that some people have a difficult time even hearing there are legitimate acceptions to an absolute moral stance. In this case we are talking about two different priests who couldn't hear, until the word lawyer was mentioned.

    Oh by the way, I called it clerical malpractice precisely because the Church's teaching allows for medical intervention in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is my understanding that failure to "spontaneously abort" upon the death of an unborn child is quite rare.

    This is apparently not as rare as you claim. According to http://www.emedicine.com/med/fulltopic/topic3235.htm#section~Causes

    History and physical examination are of limited value in the diagnosis of fetal death. In most patients, the only symptom is decreased fetal movement. An inability to obtain fetal heart tones upon examination suggests fetal demise; however, this is not diagnostic and death must be confirmed by ultrasonographic examination.

    If you have more authoritative information, please cite it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The salient point, which keeps getting brushed off to the side is that the clergy is meddling in areas it has no business meddling in, and is displaying a very disgusting lack of compassion for the health and well being of women.

    Perhaps the clergy should be prohibited from receiving treatment for cancer, diabetes, and other illness that so many of them suffer from as they age so that they can develop more compassion for those they are supposed bo be leading.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Bishops have little understanding of embryology. Yet they make these pseudo-infallible statements about Abortions." . . . Indeed, errors in fact can lead to errors in faith and morals.

    I used to believe that the See was in error. However, I now often postulate in my mind that perhaps that which is in error is not really the See. Is the See the bureaucratic closed corporation which calls itself the Church, or is the See all the Church, including those who have the facts straight to assist those who do not understand the facts?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Antonio,

    A doctor can often detect and infected pregnancy just by a vaginal exam when he sees pus coming out the cervix. I think it is time we quit trying to second guess this question. My guess is that the physician could have been a lot more detailed but had confidentiality issues.

    This was a horrible situation and the inflammation began in the lady's Uterus. This must have been a severe emotional trauma to her- so much so that she sought out solace and help from her priest. Instead of getting any pastoral approach, she got further inflammation of her emotional hurt. When the Doctor tried to help her by contacting the Chancery, the situation was further inflamed by the Monsignor. Perhaps this is why this very factual article seems inflammatory to some on this board. Let us look where the projections started and how they were made worse. I hope this good Doctor does not hesitate in the future to tell us more.

    Seems to me he is his sisters keeper!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow, it's getting hard to keep track of annonymous. Feel free to invent a monicker.

    Latest annonymous, I am right with you on the definition of See. It's all of us--or it should be because I firmly believed that's what Jesus intended.

    I also agree with your statement: Let us look where the projections started and how they were made worse. I hope this good Doctor does not hesitate in the future to tell us more.

    ReplyDelete