Davis, Henry J.

English

epublications@Marquette

The Linacre QuarterlyVolume 10 | Number 3 Article 6July 1942Ectopic Gestation: A RejoinderHenry J. DavisFollow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnqRecommended CitationDavis, Henry J. (1942) "Ectopic Gestation: A Rejoinder," The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 10: No. 3, Article 6.Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol10/iss3/6... : T~E LINAORE 9VARTERLY ~TOPIC GESTATION-A REJOINDER*.' . • Reprinted from The Eccle•ia1tical R(lview, Vol. CVI, No. 2, with permis-sion of Ed jtor. • ' \' ' l ' ·.::: ;.~ f ·• ( ' ~; I ' ' ,... ' ' . l· ·' . , .. THE LINAORE QUARTERLY topic gestation is seriously dan- sufficiently that serious danger is gerous. If he says it is, then the present in any tubal pregnancy. moralist r ould have to apply his The problem is to be resolved not principle~ of right conduct and by argument but by evidence, The decide oq the lawfulness or other- evidence collected by the present wise of t e operation of cutting writer from several of the most ex-out the t~be, foetus and all. Both pert gynaecologists in the United Monsignor O'Brien and those States appears sufficient to estab-whose opinion he rejects take that lish the facts. Evidence has al-line. It \s a little unfair of him ready been submitted. Monsignor to say: "Whether or not such a O'Brien desires more evidence to condition (namely, a definite path- be got. When it is got, still more ological condition of the tube en- evidence will be asked for. There · dangering the mother's life) ex- is no ne~d to prepare the stage he-ists, it m11st be confessed, is pri- fore the drama is put on. l\fean-marily a medical question, to be time, until volumes of repetitive answered py those who are experi- evidence are obtained, the Cath-enced in the field and who under- olic surgeon will be forbidden by stand the exact point at issue, and Monsignor O'Brien under pain of not by the a priori argumentation grievous sin to interfere with a from the very doubtful premise tubal pregnancy until the mother that there is at all times such a is in actual danger of death, and condition in cases of ectopic ges- thousands of women will die from t.ation." ruptur~d tubes before the suggest-Now thpse who, with the present ed evidence is forthcoming. writer, hold that there is always in In justice to the opinion which a tubal pregnancy a condition is tr11versed by Monsignor seriously endangering the mother's O'Brien, some irrelevances in his life, most assuredly do not argue article must be pointed out, lest a priori. It is absurd to accuse the incautious reader take them them of qoing so. They are as for arguments. fully aware of the point at issue 1. It is entirely beside the point as any medical expert is. Their to refer, even remotely, to the de-argumentl}tion is based wholly on crees of the Holy Office of 1884 medical evidence. They are, how- and 1889, because those decrees ever, satisfied, as is the present deal with craniotomy and other writer, that the weight of purely operations which directly kill the medical evidence favors the ex- foetus or the pregnant mother . . istence of serious danger to a No one dreams of defending a woman be'l ring a tubal pregnancy. view that allows the direct killing Monsignor O'Brien postulates ser- of a living foetus. ious danger before allowing opet·- 2. The propositions condemned ntion. , So do we, and we believe by Pope Innocent XI deal with that medical evidence proves quite abortion not with the excision of r 6t 1 I i I I I I I I THE LINAORE 9UARTERLY the f!llJopi&.n tubes. Monsignor O'lJrieq would not call excision of a canct~rous womb or of fallopian tubes ~bortion. In interpreting condeJllned· propositions we have to tak~ words in their strict sense. 3. 'fo q.\lote the decrees of the · lfoly Pffic~ of 1898 and 1902 is also irrelevant, unless Monsignor O'Brien thin\cs that cutting the rregnant tube is acceleration of birth, pr a direct extraction from the mother of an ectopic foetus. It is neither the one nor the other. 4. ''It must be remembered," wrote Monsignor O'Brien, "that the flply Office forbids at least any a~tion th11t directly affects the life of th~ foetus." The op-eration of cutting out the preg-nant tube pever directly affects the life pf th~ foetus. If it did so, Mons.ignor O'Brien could not have writtl'!p: "In ptt-rticular cases when there is a definite pathological conpitjon of the tube endangering the mother's life, the surgeon can cvnsci(ntiously remove the tube" (italics ours). If in this case the death of the foetus is not a direct result of the operation, it never is a direct l'csult of it. 5. "Unless t h e s e decrees," wrote Monsignor O'Brien, "are purely theoretical, then there must be some cases of ectopic gestation in which the removal of the tube is wrong. Otherwise the decrees are qevoid of practical value." He should pave written: "there must J>e some cases of ectopic ges-tation in which the removal of the foctlll is wrong." That is what the Holy Office condemned, namely, the removal of the foetus, not the removal of the tube. If the distinction appears to Mon-signor O'Brien unreal and subtle, he 111ust remember that he has adopted it himself. 6. "The contention," wrote" 1\{opsignor O'Brien, "that in all c~ses of ectopic gestation, from the moment of conception, there is a pathological condition of the tube and therefore its removal is always licit, puts a strain on moral principles, medical evidence and the decrees of the Church." Nqw this statement assumes what hAs to be proved and has not yet been proved. In the contention it has been shown that there is no strain on moral principles, that the decrees of the Church do not apply, and medical evidence goes to show that there is always a pathological condition of the tu.,be · in ectopic tubal pregnancy, as Dr. Schlueter wrote : "It is certain, from careful 1eview of the litera-ture and a study of a number of cases, that all tubal pregnancies show acute accidental inflamma-tion of the tube;" "the tube is defi-nitely pathologic by reason of acute inflammation incidental to thf ectopic gestation; it is likely that the tube was pathologic prior to the ectopic gestation." No bet-t~r support could be afforded to the view which Monsignor O'B.rien rejects than these words of a gynaecological expert. 7. It is irrelevant to say that *'many physicians insist that it is very difficult to diagnose ectopic conception, especially in the early r 62J .. ,, THE LINACRi QUARTERLY stages." In this discussion, we are confr;onted with what is actu-ally fou~d to be or gravely sus-pected to 'be an ectopic pregnancy. . 8. To write that "priests should in,iist, before giving advice in practi?al cases, that physicians be sure H1at there really is a path-ological condition ~f the tube" is irrelevant, for we are dealing with . ,! cases wh~n there certainly is a I J pathological condition of the tube 1 ,- . on the ev~dence of gynaecologists. ~· . 9. "It ~ould seem," wrote Mon-11 signor O'Brien, "that it is the de-velopment; of the foetus which makes th~ condition of the tube dangerou& to the mother-if, in-deed, it C(ln be admitted that the tube becomes dangerous in all cases-but it is not dangerous from the feginning. The danger, it seems, i~ avoided in this case by pfeventin~ the development of the foetus. Such a thing could never be justified." We agree. B11t no Catholic moralist holds that the danger to the mother is to be avoided by preventing the devel-opment of the foetus. What is held is that the danger to the mother can and may be prevented by preventing the continued seri-ous pathological condition of the tube. That this results in prevent-ing the development of the foetus is obvious, but this result is indi-rect. Monsignor O'Brien i& less than just when he attributes so extraordinary a view to his oppo-nents. In conclusion, the only point of difference between the two con-trary views is that Monsignor O'Brien's view is that serious dan-ger is not always present in an ectopic pregnancy, whereas the view of those whom he opposes IS that there is such a danger. Foreign Meqical Guilds The med)cal guilds in Spain have never disappeared; they have been active at least since the sixteenth century. The medieval French Medical <ifuild of St. Luke, St. Cosmas and St. Damian, reconsti-tuted in 1 ~84, had in 1914, 11,000 members with brunches in all the principal cities of France. For many years the formation of a Catholic Medical Guild oc-cupied the thoughts of Catholic doctors in England. Because it was almost impossible to determine who were the Catholic physicians, and for other more cogent reasons, it was finally decided to form a society capable of renewing and maintaining the ancient Christian tmditions of the profession, to be called the Guild of St. Luke, St. Cosmas, and St. Damian. On July 27, 1910, with the approval of rcclesiastical authorities, the Guild wns provisionally constituted. -Medical Missionary. [ 63] 

Ectopic Gestation: A Rejoinder

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1567&amp;context=lnq

Ectopic Gestation: A Rejoinder

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette