Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Emily Ma is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Emily Ma and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Emily Ma is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Emily Ma and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
If you are treated at a Catholic hospital, be warned: you are subject to decisions made by your doctor that follow Catholic beliefs. Namely, those about abortion.
A woman in Arizona almost died due to heart failure from complications with her pregnancy. As noted in USA Today:
What happened at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, according to the Arizona Republic’s Mike Clancy, is that Sister of Mercy Margaret McBride interpreted the bishops’ health care directives to permit a life saving procedure when doctors said there was no other choice. The directives include a provision for procedures that could kill a fetus if essential to save the life of the mother. For someone with pulmonary hypertension, the only treatment is to take the strain of pregnancy off her heart.
The nun who made the decision is now being considered a murderer in the eyes of the Catholic faith. Apparently the mom’s life wasn’t as important as the child.
In this situation, it would have been permissible to let them both die.
There are already enough arguments out there that tell me that I don’t have a right to make decisions about my body. But when did that mean I get to give them up to a medical staff because I can’t be moved to another hospital?
That was the case with the patient in Arizona. She couldn’t be moved, and there was no other option. But if the church said, “No, death is an option,” then why go to a hospital? Aren’t they supposed to help people, not kill them?
Regardless of your views on abortion as an “elective” procedure, employing abortion to save a patient’s life is a whole different ball game. We saw it come up in a Private Practice storyline: A surrogate with three babies was turned into an incubator because the “parents” of the babies didn’t want to abort them to save the surrogate’s life.
Who gets to make these calls? Is it the court, or in the case in Arizona, the church? Who supersedes whom? And what of the rights of the patient? If she has no voice, who is permitted to speak for her?
This isn’t a case of “If one goes down, both go down.” If the term is early enough, a cell/embryo/fetus can’t survive without the mother. Case closed.
Why kill them both?
What do you think about this?
Leave a comment below, and let me know what you think!
@Lindsey and @Lindsey, I think the hardest part about this idea is that it's one more group who's "in on the decision." Additionally, it can be contrary to the law. This story made me realize that in the future, should I be in a situation like that, my husband/parents/attorney would know exactly what I wanted. We may hate to think of the worst, but planning for it can make things much better down the road.