|
|
Post by Mr. Daniel on Apr 9, 2013 16:13:06 GMT -5
Last year Sr. Margaret McBride, who then worked at a hospital, was excommunicated by her bishop because she approved an abortion in order to save the mother's life. What do you think? (References to news articles about this event count as references to sources for the purpose of your grade.) |
|
|
|
Post by micahthegreat on Apr 13, 2013 19:33:36 GMT -5
The church teaches that abortion is wrong. However, they state that there are some cases when an abortion might be allowed, ex. saving a woman's life. The church follows the principal of double effect which if all four parts are accepted an abortion can be allowed. The four parts are...
1. The action being performed is not morally evil or is neutral.
2. The actor intends only the good effects of the action in question.
3. The evil consequences of the action is not the means by which the good consequence is achieved, or the evil consequences are a byproduct of the good action.
4. The harmful consequences are in balance with the good consequences.
We do not know the exact circumstances of Sr. Margaret's actions, but we can assume that she only allowed the abortion to save the mother's life. If this is the case she should not have been excommunicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by micahthegreat on Apr 14, 2013 11:51:39 GMT -5
I did some research last night and the patient that Sr. Margaret McBride allowed to have an abortion was suffering from pulmonary hypertension. "Pulmonary hypertension is a type of high blood pressure that affects the arteries in the lungs and the right side of your heart. This makes it harder for blood to flow through your lungs, and raises pressure within your lungs' arteries. As the pressure builds, your heart's lower right chamber (right ventricle) must work harder to pump blood through your lungs, eventually causing your heart muscle to weaken and eventually fail. Pulmonary hypertension is a serious illness that becomes progressively worse and is sometimes fatal." (Mayo Clinic Online) I found an article online that explains the situation ncronline.org/news/people/excommunicated-sister-finds-healing. This all supports my view above. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Daniel on Apr 14, 2013 15:20:05 GMT -5
I'm very impressed that you did some outside reading! ;  The piece about the mother's hypertension is helpful in pointing out that condition #4 of the principle of double effect is really satisfied - absolutely, the good and evil effects are balanced. However, the fact of the mother's pulmonary hypertension does not answer the question about the first condition. Remember that the first condition of the principle of double effect is that the action itself cannot be intrinsically evil. Since the action was an abortion, doesn't this whole situation fail the first condition of the PoDE? |
|
|
|
Post by micahthegreat on Apr 14, 2013 19:26:17 GMT -5
Yes abortion is morally bad but the mother's life is in danger. Polmonary hypertension is fatal. The first condition is that the action must be morally good. In this scenario either the mother or the unborn baby will have to die to save the others life. Saving the mother's life would be the good action. Now you might argue that saving the unborn child's life should be the good action but it would be better to save the life already in progress. When I say a life already in progress I am talking about a life with social, personal, economical, and emotional developments and interactions. In this scenario saving the mother's life would be considered morally good because she already has social, personal, economical,and emotional developments in action.
|
|
|
|
Post by roccodistasio on Apr 14, 2013 21:19:21 GMT -5
I agree with Micah's answer that Sr. McBride shouldn't have excommunicated from the church for her actions. In my opinion I think that Bishop Olmsted forgot to realize that the main point of a hospital is the save lives. This even applies to Catholic ones and to McBride and her committee they believed saving one life was better than risking two which makes a lot of sense. Even if this didn't follow Directive 47, they article mentions that the Directives can't answer every question leaving a possibility that the abortion could've been acceptable. Unless the Directive filled in the gaps for every situation where it's unacceptable for an abortion McBride shouldn't been excommunicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Daniel on Apr 15, 2013 15:12:56 GMT -5
Let me see if I can explain Bishop Olmsted's position a little better. Yes abortion is morally bad but the mother's life is in danger. Polmonary hypertension is fatal. The first condition is that the action must be morally good. In this scenario either the mother or the unborn baby will have to die to save the others life. Saving the mother's life would be the good action. We need to make a couple of distinctions here. Remember back to the beginning of the year when we talked about the object, intention, and circumstances of an action. The object is the action itself. You can describe the object of an action without describing a person's intention or their circumstances. "Pushing a button" is an action, for instance. By itself, there's nothing morally good or bad about pushing buttons. it's just a morally neutral object. So, if President Obama hits the red button to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack against Canada, that action is bad because of its intention and circumstances, NOT because of the object. To say that some actions are "intrinsically evil" is to say that there are certain objects which can never be justified by a good intention or good circumstances. Murder is usually considered intrinsically evil. Imagine for a second that infinitely more people will be happy if I'm dead than if I'm alive. A utilitarian would say that murdering me would be okay because actions are only good or bad based on how much happiness they produce. If murder is intrinsically evil, though, then murder can never be justified, no matter how much good would come out of the situation. Bishop Olmsted argued that, in the McBride case, you can't justify the abortion. Even though there are undeniably good effects - saving the mother's life - the action of abortion is intrinsically evil. If abortion is intrinsically evil, then it fails the first part of the principle of double effect, and so cannot be justified. Now you might argue that saving the unborn child's life should be the good action Well, the baby was going to die no matter what. If the mother dies, the baby dies too, after all. But "trying to save the baby" would be an intention. The first part of the principle of double effect is asking about the object of the action. The object would be murder, which is intrinsically evil, and so can never be justified. but it would be better to save the life already in progress. When I say a life already in progress I am talking about a life with social, personal, economical, and emotional developments and interactions. I like, by the way, that you are defining your terms here. It is really important in moral debates for us to take the time to do this. Nice. In this scenario saving the mother's life would be considered morally good because she already has social, personal, economical,and emotional developments in action. This correctly shows that the good outcome would outweigh the bad outcome, which is the last criterion of the principle of double effect. But an action needs to pass all four parts of the PoDE to be morally justified by it: As I explained above, if abortion is indeed an intrinsically evil object, then Sr. McBride's actions failed the first step of the PoDE. |
|
|
|
Post by karinad on Apr 15, 2013 22:41:46 GMT -5
Well, in trying to save the baby, wouldn't you be murdering the mother? And, if both the mother and the child died, would not the bad effect be outweighing the good effect, a violation of #4? Jeez, this is exhausting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Daniel on Apr 16, 2013 14:47:13 GMT -5
Well, in trying to save the baby, wouldn't you be murdering the mother? The Church would say no. You would be allowing the mother to die, but you aren't the one actually killing her. Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher, once calculated that it would cost $200 to save a life, on average. So, every moment I don't donate $200 to foreign aid charities, I am allowing a person to die. Is that the same as if I actually shot them to death with a gun? Generally, people would say no. Not doing anything is a morally neutral action (technically, the object of the action). Directly murdering someone would be an intrinsically immoral action. And, if both the mother and the child died, would not the bad effect be outweighing the good effect, a violation of #4? All of the criteria for the principle of double effect need to be fulfilled for it to justify an action. So even if the negative outcome outweighs the positive, the action would not be justifiable unless it also satisfied numbers 1-3. I'm glad that you think so. You should be suspicious of anyone who thinks that these issues are easy to solve! |
|
