THURSDAY, 24 JANUARY 2013

Abortion includes D&Cs and deliberate pre-viability inductions

The Irish pro-life movement is currently fighting an unprecedented threat to Ireland’s pro-life laws. In this very dangerous situation, it is important for pro-life commentators to avoid explicitly defending what is in fact abortion – even as a means of preventing much more widespread abortion. Thus deliberate pre-viability inductions, for example, should not defended, least of all by Catholics, as they are squarely contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church - see my blogs:
Savita Halappanavar death tragic but abortion doesn’t save women’s lives
Induced delivery of non-viable children is neither ethical nor Catholic
Pius XII's teaching on double-effect did not allow induced delivery of non-viable children
Some Irish pro-life commentators (see examples further below) have defended, not just legitimate treatments that target the woman’s own body (like a damaged womb or fallopian tube) but deliberate pre-viability removals and even D&Cs (dilation and currettage). These latter procedures specifically target the unborn baby with its own living tissues. Their comments are partly inspired by the Irish Medical Council's guidance (see section 21.4 of Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners)

There is a real danger that such statements will result in people in Ireland being misled into explicitly endorsing defective proposals regarding abortion. There is massive opposition to changing Ireland’s abortion law; however, some Irish pro-lifers have already indicated possible support for legislation, guidelines or clarification of the law. Instead, the Irish people need to keep on saying loud and clear to their elected representatives: leave our pro-life laws alone!

Here are some examples of the worrying statements I mention above:

Dr Eoghan de Faoite, representing Youth Defence in a hearing of the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament), said:
"Irish obstetricians and other specialists will always intervene to save the life of a mother when she has a life-threatening complication of pregnancy. This practice of intervening, which includes premature delivery of the baby even when the baby has little of no chance of surviving, is permitted in Ireland today. It is permitted under Irish law and by the Medical Council's ethical guidelines and is within pro-life principles."

Greg Daly, an Irish Catholic blogger, wrote:
"As far as I can see, Galway University Hospital would have been fully within its legal rights to have induced a preterm delivery -- or foetal evacuation -- in an attempt to save both mother and child. Indeed, not merely would it have been within its rights to do so, doing so would have been normal medical practice.

This is exactly the sort of thing that Dr Berry Kiely talked about back on what was an uncommonly good Vincent Browne show back in the Spring -- you induce a preterm delivery, thus saving the mother, and you do everything you can to try to save the child. You almost certainly fail, but you try."
Catholic Comment, the Irish version of Catholic Voices (UK), issued a statement saying:
"[F]or the hospital to have induced labour with the intention of saving Savita would have been in accord both with Irish law, normal Irish medical practice, and with Catholic teaching."

And as I blogged in December Mary Kenny, outgoing Master of the Catholic Writers' Guild, wrote:
"In truth, we do not know whether a termination of her pregnancy would have saved Mrs Halappanavar’s life, but there certainly has been pressure – rightly – to clarify the situation legally so that should it arise again, doctors may perform an abortion."

David Quinn, director of the Iona Institute, wrote in November:
“When a woman is miscarrying, there are three normal courses of action. The usual one is to let nature take its course. If nature is not taking its course quickly enough and the life of the mother is being endangered as a result of blood loss and the possibility of infection, then there are two other possible courses of action. The first is to induce labour and the second is to perform a D & C which essentially evacuates the contents of the womb, including the foetus. Why isn’t either of these two courses of action tantamount to abortion? The reason is that the intention is not to kill the baby.”

Via Facebook
"According to Fr Celestine Bittle, abortion is defined as ‘the expulsion of a living fetus from the mother’s womb before the fetus is viable.’
He defines ‘indirect abortion’ as ‘an abortion which is a secondary effect of an otherwise licit action which is the primary object of the intention.’

For the principle of ‘double effect’ to be invoked it is necessary, according to Fr Bittle, that a number of conditions are met. The first of these is that ‘The principle action must in itself be a morally good or indifferent act.’

Inducing an abortion through expelling a non-viable foetus is not morally good or indifferent. It is condemning it to certain death.

Father Bittle continues; ‘Intentional abortion, i.e., the deliberately induced expulsion of a living fetus before it has become viable, is always grievously immoral, even when done to save the life of the mother.’

An article here from John Smeaton. It should be remembered that any and all direct and deliberate action to end the life of a child even “if the mother’s life be at risk” constitutes abortion.

http://spuc-director.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/induced-delivery-of-non-viable-children.html

In the wake of the tragic death of Savita Halappanar, various pro-life and Catholic commentators have been claiming that inducing delivery of Savita's child would have an appropriate course of action. They claim that an induction does not constitute abortion and is standard medical practice in Ireland.
These commentators are wrong. In its 2009 "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services", the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) teaches [my emphases inbold]:

"45. Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion..."
....
"49. For a proportionate reason, labor may be induced after the fetus is viable."

Savita was in the 17th week of pregnancy. There is no scientific evidence that unborn children are capable of surviving outside the womb at such a young age. If the doctor in Savita's case had agreed to induce her child,  he would have been performing an abortion. The principle of double-effect would not have justified inducing Savita because:

the termination of pregnancy before viability (which would certainly have killed the child) would have been directly intended, and would not have been (as double-effect requires) an indirect and unintended effect

the sole immediate effect of the inducing would have been the termination of pregnancy before viability, thus killing the child

there are alternative ways of managing these highly distressing cases (see my blog on the International Symposium on Maternal Health held in Dublin in September).

The intrinsic wrongness of inducing babies before viability has been taught clearly by the Catholic Church. In the late 19th century a doctor who practised premature delivery of non-viable children in the belief that it could save mothers' lives asked the Holy Office (now called the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith) if his practice was licit. The Holy Office replied* in 1895:

"In the negative, according to other decrees [of the Holy Office]".

This reply of the Holy Office was approved the next day by Pope Leo XIII himself. One of those "other decrees" (1889) had declared as not "licit":

"every surgical operation that directly kills the fetus".

Another papally-approved reply by the Holy Office in 1898 referred to the 1895 reply above (condemning premature delivery of non-viable children) as a

"decree...on the illicitness of abortion".

The Church was thus making clear that premature delivery of non-viable children is abortion.
In 1902 another reply of the Holy Office decreed that it was not permitted to extract from the womb an unborn child earlier than six months after conception (at that time, the point of viability), explaining that:

"[W]ith respect to time...no accleration of the birth is licit, unless it be performed at the time and according to the methods by which in the ordinary course of events the life of the mother and that of the fetus are considered."

In other words, premature delivery of non-viable children violates their right to life. Pro-life and Catholic commentators should take care not to deny that truth nor promote such inducing as an ethical response to medical emergencies.
*See "The Sources of Catholic Dogma", Henry Denzinger, Loreto Publications, 1955, section 1889 onwards.

One would think/assume you are preaching to the converted when discussing abortion with fellow Catholics.

Subversion of the leadership of conservatives has been fatal to conservatism.

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,

Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.