ProLife Arizona is a non-denominational prolife organization. As such we recognize scholarly articles from all faiths regarding the need to respect all life. The below was written by Fr. John Ehrich, the Medical Ethics Director of the Diocese of Phoenix. It is a superb piece explaining the prolife position regarding pregnant mothers who are at risk.
Catholic Morality and Pregnant Mothers Who are at Risk
A recent news story has brought to our attention the potential dangers that still exist during pregnancy for both mother and child. We naturally ask, what is the right thing to do if a pregnant woman's life is in danger? Is it ever legitimate to perform an abortion to save the mother's life? As Catholics, we have clear teaching in this area that helps us to act in accord with God's will and in recognition of the human dignity of every person.
Some Basic Principles
It is important to note at the outset that these are very complex issues which demand careful reflection. We first need to start with some basic moral principles.
First, no one can do evil that good may come. We commonly know this as "the end does not justify the means." Just because we can do something does not mean that we should.
Second, when speaking of a woman who is pregnant, we are always referring to two people: mother and child. Therefore, any medical intervention must seek the good of both mother and child. In short, we are dealing with two patients, not just one. So, we never would speak of how the mother's life is at risk without reference to her unborn child. Her child has as much dignity and value as she does. Morally speaking we can never prefer one life over the other.
Third, the unborn child can never be thought of as a pathology or an illness. That is, the child is not that which threatens the life of the mother, rather it is the pathology or illness (cancer, premature rupture of membranes, hypertension, preeclampsia, etc.) which threatens the mother's life. While it is often possible that the pregnancy will aggravate an existing condition, we should never accuse the child of being a threat to the mother.
In difficult situations when the mother's life is threatened by an underlying condition, the solution can never be to directly kill her unborn child. To do so is an abortion. A Dilation and Curettage (D&C) or Dilation and Extraction (D&E) procedure in this context is the same thing as an abortion since it is the direct killing of an unborn child. The reason for such a procedure never matters. It is also important to note that the secondary intention or goal does not change the moral evil of this act. As John Paul II taught infallibly in his encyclical "The Gospel of Life,"
I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. (EV 62)
What Can Be Done?
So what can be done in such a situation? That depends upon the actual pathology or illness. The pathology should always be treated, to the extent possible, all the while remembering that there are two patients who are at risk. When treating the illness, physicians should always try to protect the life of the child, who has just as much a right to life as the mother. In the best of circumstances a physician will treat the mother's pathology and hold off on more aggressive treatment until the child is past the point of viability, at which time labor can be induced.
Sometimes, however, the actual pathology must be treated prior to the viability of the child and may indirectly cause the death of the child. This situation is altogether different from a D&C, since a D&C is the dismembering and removing of the body of the child. A D&C or D&E in this circumstance is the same as an abortion, since it is the direct killing of the child. There is a significant difference, morally speaking, between directly killing versus allowing a child to die as an unintended side effect of life saving treatment. A similar, although not completely analogous, distinction is made between murder and self-defense. The end result is the same, but the action taken and the circumstances change the way we evaluate the end result. Once again, the end does not justify the means.
The Catholic Position
Today we often hear people say, "I'm against abortion unless in cases of rape, incest or situations that threaten the life of the mother." The Catholic position is much simpler; "We are always against abortion." Every abortion is murder since it constitutes the unjust killing of an innocent life. Thus, it can never be justified under any circumstance. The question might arise, "Isn't it better to save one life as opposed to allowing two people to die?" One thing we must always remember is that no physician can predict what will happen with 100% accuracy. We will never be able to eliminate all risks associated with pregnancy. What we should not do, however, is lower risks associated with pregnancy by aborting children.
It is not better for a woman to have to live the rest of her existence knowing that she had her child killed because her pregnancy was high risk. When we try to control every possible situation in life, we end up playing the role of God. As people of faith we know that our lives are always in God's hands. In these situations the reality of our dependence upon Him becomes ever more clear and pronounced.
Fr. John Ehrich, STL
Medical Ethics Director
Diocese of Phoenix
