What the Bishops Have to Say For Themselves
Ireland's Catholic bishops have released an official statement on the death of Savita Halappanavar, to my surprise. It may well be that the outcry was so great, they felt obligated to respond. If so, it would be a rare instance of the church being swayed by external pressure.
However, the statement itself doesn't say anything new or specific. Mostly, it just reiterates the church's stance on abortion, which is this:
Where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may put the life of her baby at risk, such treatments are ethically permissible provided every effort has been made to save the life of both the mother and her baby.
That sounds fair and reasonable for the uncommon cases where, say, a pregnant woman has cancer, and chemotherapy or radiation would save her life but kill the fetus. It's good they agree that a woman in that situation should get medical care. But the bishops fail to address an obvious question: What happens when it's the pregnancy itself that's threatening the woman's life, and not some unrelated illness that just happens to afflict a pregnant woman?
That's what happened in the Phoenix case where a woman - three months pregnant and already a mother - came to the hospital with severe pregnancy-induced hypertension. Had the pregnancy been allowed to continue, she would almost certainly have had a heart attack or a stroke. The only possible cure was abortion, ending the pregnancy that was threatening her life. The alternative was doing nothing, which would have killed her and thus killed the fetus anyway.
And that's what happened in Savita's case (as well as these similar cases that I discussed previously). The problem was that she was having a miscarriage. Her fetus was too undeveloped to survive outside the womb, no matter what. But a miscarriage can take days to play out, and the opening of the cervix during this time, like an open wound, creates a grave risk for infection. Again, the only question was whether to perform an abortion, slightly hastening the end of a doomed pregnancy, or to do nothing, drawing out the chance of a deadly infection as the fetus slowly dies. Of course, we know what Savita's doctors chose.
The bishops' statement avoids giving a direct answer to this question, but if you read it carefully, their position is plain. They express the obligatory condolences, but what they notably don't say is that Savita's doctors did anything wrong. On the contrary, they proclaim that abortion is "gravely immoral in all circumstances" [my emphasis]. The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services say the same, in Directive 45: "Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted."
So, here's the takeaway: According to the bishops, Savita's doctors did the right thing, and when there are similar cases in the future, those doctors should make the same decisions. When there's a situation where a pregnant woman's life is threatened by continued pregnancy and the fetus cannot survive no matter what, it's better to stand by and let both die than to act and save one. That is the official position of the Catholic church.
The question of what to do when a pregnant woman's life is threatened isn't, and shouldn't be, the be-all and end-all of abortion. There are other important points to be made, about bodily autonomy, about the church's senseless and counterproductive resistance to contraception, about the callousness of demanding that women bear children they don't want and can't afford to care for. Those are all discussions that we can and should have. But there's value in pressing this particular issue, because that's where the stakes are most obvious, and the contrast is diamond-clear. When pregnancy endangers a woman's life, one side wants her to live, and one side wants her to die. There is no third option. Which of those sides do you want to be on?
Daylight Atheism: The Book is now available! Click here for reviews and ordering information.
Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.
No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.
The Oxfam report prompted Anand Giridharadas to tweet: "Don't be Pinkered into everything's-getting-better complacency."
- A new report by Oxfam argues that wealth inequality is causing poverty and misery around the world.
- In the last year, the world's billionaires saw their wealth increase by 12%, while the poorest 3.8 billion people on the planet lost 11% of their wealth.
- The report prompted Anand Giridharadas to tweet: "Don't be Pinkered into everything's-getting-better complacency." We explain what Steven Pinker's got to do with it.
Moans, groans, and gripes release stress hormones in the brain.
Could you give up complaining for a whole month? That's the crux of this interesting piece by Jessica Hullinger over at Fast Company. Hullinger explores the reasons why humans are so predisposed to griping and why, despite these predispositions, we should all try to complain less. As for no complaining for a month, that was the goal for people enrolled in the Complaint Restraint project.
Participants sought to go the entirety of February without so much as a moan, groan, or bellyache.
- Facebook and Google began as companies with supposedly noble purposes.
- Creating a more connected world and indexing the world's information: what could be better than that?
- But pressure to return value to shareholders came at the expense of their own users.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.