St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix can no longer identify itself as “Catholic,” Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted announced during a Dec. 21 news conference in Phoenix at the Diocesan Pastoral Center.
The Phoenix bishop issued a decree revoking the 115-year-old hospital’s affiliation with the Catholic Church. In the decree, the bishop wrote that he could not verify that the hospital provides health care consistent with “authentic Catholic moral teaching.”
“I really want to have Catholic health care,” Bishop Olmsted said during the news conference. “We should be working together, not against each other.”
Good for the bishop.
From what I’ve read about this case, the decision to abort was not taken lightly at all and, if had not been done, the mother’s life was in grave danger. Would the bishop have been in an uproar if the mother or both mother and child had died? (Aside from any uproar that lawsuits would have caused, of course.)
In my corner of the world, most of the religious-affiliated hospitals are Southern Baptist, a denomination just as pro-life as the Catholics. Yet, I haven’t heard about SB leaders analyzing or second-guessing medical decisions and treatment given in their hospitals.
All hospitals have ethics committees; religious-affiliated hospitals likely are called upon to balance church teaching with sound medical practice and necessity. The hospital in question here did just that. It’s rather disturbing to realize that a bishop with no medical training or experience could unilaterally interfere with patient care.
yeh, I am sure it was a totally arbitrary decision taken by the bishop on a whim with no medical advice or counsel…
Oh, he did consult with the medicine men, according to reports. But he dismissed the information they gave him. And the Catholic Hospital Association, in analyzing the decision, stated that the hospital’s decision was the correct one.
We are NOT talking about a woman who wanted an abortion and was looking for a way to facilitate it. The woman did not want to end the pregnancy. The medical staff treated her for pulmonary hypertension but she became gravely ill and had a near 100-percent chance of dying if the pregnancy continued. And it was only after painstaking consideration that all agreed removing the placenta (which was causing the huge blood pressure spikes) was the only option. Unless you wanted both to die. The fetus was only 11 weeks along and the woman was already having serious, uncontrollable health issues.
So, yes, the bishop was apprised of the medical facts but he disregarded them and characterized the situation as a direct abortion.
Of course, the direct killing of an unborn child is euphemistically called “patient care”. BTW, the bishop didn’t interfere with “patient care”. What the bishop did was tell the hospital that if they think what they did(violating Catholic moral teaching) is “patient care” then they cannot hold themselves out to the public as a Catholic hospital. That is exactly what the proper role of a bishop is.
Oh, gee, it looks like you “misinterpreted” my words. I guess you thought I meant “consult with doctors at the hospital under review”.
hmm…I wonder whether any doctor or any nun could have come to any other conclusion than to save one life you must directly take another?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishop-olmsted-gravely-concerned-by-abortion-at-arizona-catholic-hospital/
It is not about one abortion as tt2 believes. Prof. Richard Myers writes:
[blockquote] Bishop Olmsted has threatened to prohibit St. Joseph Hospital from calling itself a “Catholic” hospital after an abortion was performed at the hospital, and after the hospital has apparently refused to acknowledge Bishop Olmsted’s teaching authority. The Bishop was apparently not thrilled that the hospital appealed to the moral authority of a theologian at Marquette (M. Therese Lysaught) who disagreed with the Bishop’s analysis of the morality of the abortion. [/blockquote]
Moreover, the Decree on the Laity (N. 24) provides:
[blockquote] Indeed, the lay apostolate admits of different types of relationships with the hierarchy in accordance with the various forms and objects of this apostolate. For in the Church there are many apostolic undertakings which are established by the free choice of the laity and regulated by their prudent judgment. The mission of the Church can be better accomplished in certain circumstances by undertakings of this kind, and therefore they are frequently praised or recommended by the hierarchy. No project, however, may claim the name “Catholic” unless it has obtained the consent of the lawful Church authority. [/blockquote]
tt2, the bishop didn’t disregard any medical facts as you charge. What took place was a direct abortion. You happen to disagree with Catholic moral teaching against direct abortion.
While I don’t disagree with the bishop’s decision (especially give their history), its interesting to note the thin line of double effect. In this case removing the placenta (and fetus) to cure hypertension is a direct abortion but removing the entire uterus (and fetus) to cure uterine cancer is indirect.
I can’t say I’m completely convinced of the latter.
Sorry, guys, I was raised RC and am well aware of what Catholic moral teaching is in this regard. I don’t disagree with it. This case comes as close to the textbook examples as possible — a woman who had NO desire to terminate her pregnancy and who was working with health professionals to preserve her health and her pregnancy suffers a crisis in the pregnancy. The placenta’s production is creating the medical emergency and must be removed. The fetus cannot survive without the placenta. Indirect abortion.
From the ethics articles I read, it’s similar to cases in which female cancers must be removed from pregnant women. The reason for the procedures is not primarily to abort but the death of the fetus is a consequence of the procedures.
But, from reading other sources, it seems as if the bishop is hanging his hat on this case because of other charges he’s made against the hospital, pertaining to its relationship with another party that distributes contraceptives and contraceptive information through Medicaid. Clearly, he’s wanted the disassocation. That’s within his right. Using this tragic case to accomplish that aim is wrong, IMO.
The Tim Tebow case bears no resemblance to this one, btw. Choosing to abort a child who may have birth defects is vastly different than a woman who has a nearly 0 chance of living if she continues the pregnancy having a life-saving procedure that ends the life of the fetus. The only similarity is that neither mum wanted to abort.
So, what would y’all have done? Allowed the pulmonary hypertension to claim her life (and probably the child’s life, too, since they weren’t even close to viability)? Do y’all contend the most moral choice is to let both die (and to leave her other four children motherless) even though one life could have been saved? And, being as honest as you can be, is that the choice you would insist upon for your wife, daughter, sister, etc.?
Thankfully, I will never have to make this choice personally, but I will be perfectly honest here and say that if I were in this woman’s shoes, I would have made the same choice that she did. And, yes, it would pain me just as much as I’m sure it has for her. But I would be absolutely livid if the bishop used my situation to excommunicate anyone involved and to punish the hospital.
Don C.,
Yes, that’s it. The intention cannot be to kill the fetus but if the fetus dies in a procedure that is necessary to save the life of the mother, then it’s not a direct abortion. I see no difference in intent in this case from the life-saving cancer surgeries that result in fetal death.
Moreover, this woman’s condition went downhill dramatically. In the beginning of the pregnancy, she had a 50 percent survival rate and her hypertension was controlled. But by 11 weeks, the condition became uncontrollable and her survival prognosis was near 0. In the cancer situations, they can sometimes wait until the child is viable and can be delivered prematurely. That wasn’t an option in this case.
#10. As I see it, Roman Catholic hospitals are potentially dangerous places for women (of any faith) who disagree with that church’s stated positions on various issues related to medical ethics, particularly related to pregnancy and obstetrical care.
If I were in that woman’s shoes, and had made the decision to terminate the pregnancy, I’d have used those shoes to get to a different hospital.
This bishop certainly has the right to exert discipline over a nun, and to determine whether the hospital will receive designation as Roman Catholic.
TT2, if the placenta had been diseased and/or malfunctioning then its removal would have resulted in an indirect abortion. In this case the placenta was neither diseased nor malfunctioning. Despite your protestations you are not aware of what the Church’s teaching is on this issue. I urge you to read the Bishops’ directive,which you can find at the USCCB’s website.
The ethics of taking a life to save one (or more lives) is not a sound-bite type of decision, nor does it necessarily mean someone has assumed a “God-complex”. It sounds like the Bishop had longstanding problems with the hospital and this was the last straw. Likewise, it sounds like the hospital was not straighforward in its dealings with the bishop.
Ralph, I think you’re mistaken if you think the world would be less dangerous if people ascribed to the moral maxim that one can do evil if he/she believes the consequences will result in a greater good.
phil,
The placenta caused the serious medical condition to threaten her life. Removing it would save one life; not removing it would claim two lives. So, the moral choice is to allow two people to die? Is that what you would decide is best for one of your loved ones?
Moral decisions are not made in a vacuum. One life is not more important than the other. However, this is a choice between one person surviving or neither surviving. Does moral law indicate that we must never save one person if doing so leads to the death of another? If you are being attacked by someone and are in imminent danger of death, then is it morally wrong for the police to kill your attacker to save your life?
A father is carrying his infant son along a railroad trestle with a train bearing down upon them. The father correctly calculates that the only way he can beat the train is to drop the child on the tracks. Is the father justified in dropping his child?
Any father who is carrying an infant along railroad tracks knowingly has put himself and his child in a dangerous position and is in control of the situation. He made a poor moral choice in choosing to behave thusly, and nothing/no one forced him into that situation.
If you’re saying that this woman knowingly put herself and her child in a dangerous situation by becoming pregnant, that’s not the case. She has four other children and could not be expected to anticipate that this pregnancy would be life-threatening.
And you have just illustrated that moral/ethical decisions do not occur in a vacuum.
TT2, I think you evaded answering the #17 hypothetical. Are you proposing that had the woman in this case known before she got pregnant that she might have life threatening pulmonary hypertension then it would have been immoral for her to have had an abortion?