Morning Light Ministry has received many inquiries from parents about
Catholic Church teaching in regards to an adverse prenatal diagnosis.
We include these church documents to help clarify the Church's teaching
on the sanctity of life from conception regardless of a fatal or non-fatal prenatal diagnosis.
If you are a parent whose baby has received an adverse prenatal diagnosis
please visit our web page HOPE IN TURMOIL
We can offer you information and support in carrying your baby to term despite an adverse prenatal diagnosis.
1 - "Evangelium Vitae" On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life,
March 25, 1995, His Holiness Pope John Paul II
2 - NCCB (U.S. Bishops) Statement on Anencephaly, Published in L'Osservatore Romano,
the newspaper of the Holy See, Vatican, September 23, 1998
3 - Commentary by Peter Cataldo, Published in Ethics & Morals,
Vol.22, No. 1, Pope John Center For The Study of Ethics
4 - Commentary by staff at NCCB, Published in L'Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, Vatican, September 23, 1998.
5 - Commentary by Fr. Benedict Ashley, O.P. Published in L'Osservatore Romano,
the newspaper of the Holy See, Vatican, September 23, 1998
6 - RECEIVING A CHILD WITH JOY, by Archbishop T. Prendergast, S.J.,
GOD'S WORD ON SUNDAY column, December 22, 2002, The Catholic Register
7 - NCBC (National Catholic Bioethics Center) Statement On Early Induction of Labor, March 11, 2004, Boston, Massachusetts.
No. 14, EVANGELIUM VITAE |
Statement issued by the
Committee on Doctrine of the National Council of Catholic
Bishops on September
20, 1996 (United States)
Published in L’Osservatore
Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See,
Vatican, September 23,
1998
Moral Principles
Concerning Infants with Anencephaly
Some have attempted to argue that anencephalic children may be prematurely delivered, even when this would be inappropriate for other children. This argument is based on the opinion that because of their apparent lack of cognitive function and in view of the probable brevity of their lives, these infants are not the subject of human rights or at least have lives of less meaning or purpose than others. Doubts about the human dignity of the anencephalic infant, however, have no solid ground, and the benefit of any doubt must be in the child's favour. As a general rule, conditions of the human body, regardless of severity, in no way compromise human dignity or human rights.
The "Ethical and Religious
Directives for Catholic Health Care Services", Directive 45, states: "Abortion
(that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability
or the directly intended destruction of a viable foetus) is never permitted.
Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy
before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes
the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo".
The phrase sole immediate
effect is further explained by Directive 47 which states: "Operations,
treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of
a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are
permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is
viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child".
In other words, it
is permitted to treat directly a pathology of the mother even when this
has the unintended side effect of causing the death of her child, if this
pathology left untreated would have life-threatening effects on both mother
and child, but it is not permitted to terminate or gravely risk the child's
life as a means of treating or protecting the mother.
Hence, it is clear
that before "viability" it is never permitted to terminate the gestation
of an anencephalic child as the means of avoiding psychological or physical
risks to the mother. Nor is such termination permitted after "viability"
if early delivery endangers the child's life due to complications of prematurity.
In such cases it cannot reasonably be maintained that such a termination
is simply a side effect of the treatment of a pathology of the mother (as
described in Directive 47). Anencephaly is not a pathology of the mother,
but of the child, and terminating her pregnancy cannot be a treatment of
a pathology she does not have. Only if the complications of the pregnancy
result in a life-threatening pathology of the mother, may the treatment
of this pathology be permitted even at a risk to the child, and then only
if the child's death is not a means to treating the mother.
The fact that the
life of a child suffering from anencephaly will probably be brief cannot
excuse directly causing death before "viability" or gravely endangering
the child's life after "viability" as a result of the complications of
prematurity.
The anencephalic child,
during his or her probably brief life after birth, should be given the
comfort and palliative care appropriate to all the dying. This failing
life need not be further troubled by using extraordinary means to prolong
it (see "Ethical and Religious Directives", Directives 57 and 58). It is
most commendable for parents to wish to donate the organs of an anencephalic
child for transplants that may assist other children, but this may never
be permitted before the donor child is certainly dead.
The profound and personal
suffering of the parents of an anencephalic child gives us cause for concern
and calls for compassionate pastoral and medical care as the parents prepare
for the pain and emptiness that the certain death of their newborn child
will bring. The mother who carries to term a child who will soon die deserves
our every possible support. The baptism of the child assures the parents
of the child's eternal happiness, and the provision of Christian burial
of the deceased infant gives witness to the Church's unconditional respect
for human life and the recognition that in the face of every human being
is an encounter with God.
The NCCB On Anencephaly
By Peter J. Cataldo,
Ph.D., Director of Research,
Pope John Center
For The Study Of Ethics In Health Care
From: Ethics
& Medics, Vol. 22, No. 1
January, 1997
The Human Nature Of The Anencephalic Infant
On September 20, 1996, the NCCB Committee on Doctrine issued a statement entitled “Moral Principles Concerning Infants With Anencephaly.” The statement provides helpful clarification on the ethics of caring for anencephalic infants. The condition of anencephaly, which can be diagnosed early and accurately by ultrasound imaging, is described in this way,
Anencephaly is a congenital anomaly characterized by failure of development of the cerebral hemispheres and overlying skull and scalp, exposing the brain stem. This condition exists in varying degrees of severity. Most infants who have anencephaly do not survive for more than a few days after birth. (Origins, vol. 26, no.16, p. 276. All quotations herein, unless otherwise identified, have this same reference.)The central ethical issues pertaining to anencephalic infants are: abortion, early induction of labour, postnatal care, and donation of organs for transplantation. Any evaluation of these issues is influenced by what is presupposed about the humanity of the infant. The NCCB statement addresses this question in the language of human dignity:
Doubts about the human dignity of the anencephalic infant, however, have no solid ground, and the benefit of any doubt must be in the child’s favor. As a general rule, conditions of the human body, regardless of severity, in no way compromise human dignity or human rights.The combination of certain factors show that the anencephalic is a human being: the infant is generated from human parents, possesses the complete human genome, and functions as an integrated organism. Postnatally, the anencephalic exhibits typical newborn physical behaviors.
According to the well-established teaching of the Catholic Church, the rights of a mother and her unborn child deserve equal protection because they are based on the dignity of the human person whatever the condition of that person.The options of abortion and early induction of labor for these infants are sometimes defended simply by the claim that the anencephalic is not a being for whom the concept of “viability” properly applies. “Viability” is the gestational age at which a fetus can survive outside the womb with aggressive treatment (currently around 23 to 24 weeks). The moral significance of “viability” is that the direct destruction of a previable fetus or of a viable fetus is considered an abortion. If it can be shown that “viability” does not pertain to the anencephalic infant, then it is claimed that the prohibition against abortion cannot apply.
Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child. (Directive 47)The statement makes it clear that any morally acceptable procedure that indirectly results in the death of the anencephalic child must be a direct treatment of a life-threatening maternal pathology, which, it should also be mentioned, puts the life of the child at risk as well.
The Issue of Emotional Trauma
The attempt
to prevent physical or psychological risks to the mother when no such risks
exist by terminating the life of the infant uses the death of the infant
as the means for risk prevention:
Hence, it is clear
that before “viability” it is never permitted to terminate the gestation
of an anencephalic child as the means of avoiding psychological or physical
risks to the mother. Nor is such termination permitted after “viability”
if early delivery endangers the child’s life due to complications of prematurity.
The NCCB
statement provides an answer to the longstanding question of whether the
alleviation of a mother’s emotional anguish and trauma that is sometimes
associated with this sort of pregnancy is itself a proportionate reason
for terminating the life of an anencephalic infant. In particular, the
statement addresses directive 49 of the Directives: “For a proportionate
reason, labor may be induced after the fetus is viable.” The NCCB statement
shows that the psychological state of the mother does not qualify as a
proportionate reason for terminating the life of the infant by inducing
labor either before or after viability. The emotional trauma of the mother
is in response to the condition of anencephaly, but the statement shows
that the act of terminating the pregnancy is in itself directed at the
infant not the mother: “ Anencephaly is not a pathology of the mother,
but of the child, and terminating her pregnancy cannot be a treatment of
a pathology she does not have.”
If emotional
suffering is the condition of the mother (and father), then direct treatment
ought to be given for it. The statement acknowledges this problem and calls
for appropriate care:
The profound and personal suffering of the parents of an anencephalic child gives us cause for concern and calls for compassionate pastoral and medical care as the parents prepare for the pain and emptiness that the certain death of their newborn child will bring. The mother who carries to term a child who will soon die deserves our every possible support.Parents can benefit from bereavement programs or psychological counseling. Catholic health care institutions would do well to offer these services to parents of anencephalic children. Bringing the pregnancy to term, allowing optimal opportunity for baptism, and the opportunity for the mother and father to be with the child are all important steps toward bringing closure to the ordeal of the parents.
Postnatal Issues
The statement explains that the moral obligations regarding postnatal care for the anencephalic infant are the same as those for any patient whose death is imminent. First, the moral obligation to conserve human life must be fulfilled proportionate to the individual condition of the child:
The anencephalic child, during his or her probably brief life after birth, should be given the comfort and palliative care appropriate to all the dying. This failing life need not be further troubled by using extraordinary means to prolong it.Second, the child must be certainly dead before any organs may be taken for transplantation. The shortage of viable pediatric organs for transplantation cannot justify their removal from a still living child. The NCCB statement addresses the issue in the following way:
It is most commendable for parents to wish to donate the organs of an anencephalic child for transplants that may assist other children, but this may never be permitted before the donor child is certainly dead.This position is in stark contrast to the opinion held by the American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs in 1995: “the value in the life of an anencephalic neonate is a value only for others” (Journal of the American Medical Association, 273:20:1615)
Anencephalic Infants
and Their Care
(Commentary prepared
by the staff of the Committee on Doctrine of the U.S. National Conference
of
Catholic Bishops)
Published in L’Osservatore
Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See,
Vatican, September 23,
1998
The Pope condemns the
"conspiracy against life" (n. 17) which endeavours, among other
things, to "eliminate malformed babies" and those with disabilities (n.
15). The Holy Father reaffirms the Church's teaching that "the direct and
voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral"
(n. 57), as is evidenced in "selective abortion" aimed at preventing "the
birth of children affected by various types" of physiologic anomalies (n.
63). The Pope calls for the fostering of "a contemplative outlook",
one which recognizes "every individual as a 'wonder'" (n. 83). We must
all develop a posture which makes "unconditional respect for human life
the foundation of a renewed society" (n. 77), enabling us "to see in every
human face the face of Christ" (n. 81). With this outlook in mind, we "accept
[life] as a gift, discovering in all things the reflection of the Creator
and seeing in every person his living image" (n. 83).
This perspective does
not falter when confronted with those who are sick, suffering, marginalized
or dying. Rather, we are "challenged to find meaning ... precisely in these
circumstances" (n. 83) and perceive in the face of every individual an
encounter with God.
The Anencephalic Infant
The Church recognizes anencephalic infants as truly human and worthy of the unconditional respect and reverence befitting every person. The 1987 Vatican Instruction On Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation affirms this point: "The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every human being to life" (n. 1:1).
Pastoral care personnel,
with the assistance of a hospital's ethics committee, can be a supportive
presence to both the family and medical community in confronting the complex
emotions involved in caring for anencephalic infant. As our Ethical
and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (1995) affirm,
pastoral care truly "assists those in need to experience their own dignity
and value, especially when these are obscured by the burdens of illness
or the anxiety of imminent death" (Part II: Introduction).
Parents of an anencephalic
infant often experience a sense of failure, of anger over dashed hopes,
and of fear of the unknown. Within this experience of immense personal
suffering, it is important that they find within the Church a ready embrace
and heartfelt assurance that they did not fail in their role as parents.
The death of a child is indeed one of the most difficult losses to mourn,
and the Church should be sensitive to this in providing for the Christian
burial of deceased anencephalic infants. Pastoral care personnel should
make every effort to collaborate in the development and implementation
of comprehensive prenatal and postnatal bereavement programmes that will
assist families in dealing with the loss, emptiness and sorrow which are
ever pervasive in these circumstances.
Second, it is to be
considered a serious violation of the rights of the infant in utero
to induce delivery prior to viability. Viability refers to the point in
pregnancy at which the infant will be able to survive outside the womb,
generally occurring at about 25 weeks of gestation. The Ethical and
Religious Directives remind us that the directly intended termination
of a pregnancy before viability constitutes a procured abortion and is
never permitted (n. 45).
Some physicians and
health-care providers advocate the delivery of previable anencephalic infants
in order to eliminate the anxiety, fear and trauma especially on the part
of the mother. The question must be asked, "What are we here and now purposely
doing when we directly cause the delivery of an anencephalic infant before
viability? What is the purpose of this action"? The Church evaluates this
action as a directly intended abortion since the sole immediate effect
of the act is the certain death of the foetus. The Ethical and Religious
Directives are clear on this point: "Abortion (that is, the directly
intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended
destruction of a viable foetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose
sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability
is an abortion ..." (n. 45).
Consequently, delivery
before viability of an anencephalic infant cannot be justified by the use
of the principle of double effect, as the delivery of the infant in this
case constitutes a direct killing of the foetus. For, as the Ethical
and Religious Directives teach: "Operations, treatments and medications
that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious
pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot
be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will
result in the death of the unborn child" (n. 47).
Because this intervention
in the pregnancy of an anencephalic infant results in a direct killing
of an innocent human being, the only suitable and ethical response is to
allow the infant to reach viability, to baptize the infant immediately
upon birth (Ethical and Religious Directives, n. 17), and to allow
the parents to hold the infant as he or she is allowed to die. Labour may
be induced after the foetus is viable, for a proportionate reason (n. 49).
Third, even though
the anencephalic infant often does not live beyond a few hours or days,
he or she is still a member of the human family and must be assured "comfort
care" such as warmth, air, sanitary conditions and bonding with the parents
if they wish. Care for the dying anencephalic infant must be humane and
dignified. The Declaration on Euthanasia (1980) teaches: "When inevitable
death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience
to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure
a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal
care due the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted" (n. IV).
The Ethical and
Religious Directives confirm this same point: "The inherent dignity
of the human person must be respected and protected regardless of the nature
of the person's health problem.... The respect for human dignity extends
to all persons who are served by Catholic health care" (n. 23).
In other words, the
fundamental reason for limiting care (e.g., not using antibiotic therapy
to combat infection) is that, for example, counteracting an infection and
thus briefly prolonging the infant's life will not benefit the infant.
The Ethical and
Religious Directives are instructive: "A person may forgo extraordinary
or disproportionate means of preserving life. Disproportionate means are
those that in the patient's judgement do not offer a reasonable hope of
benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose excessive expense on the
family or the community" (n. 57).
Finally, some attention
is due here to the question of the use of anencephalic infants as organ
donors. The Ethical and Religious Directives allow for the donation
of organs (nn. 63-65) but warn that "such organs should not be removed
until it has been medically determined that the patient has died.... The
use of tissue or organs from an infant may be permitted after death has
been determined and with the informed consent of the parents or guardians".
The Holy Father likewise
condemns the removal of vital organs "without respecting objective and
adequate criteria which verify the death of the donor", calling such attempts
a "furtive" but real form of "euthanasia" (Evangelium vitae, n.
15). In the United States, regulations do not permit organ donation from
anencephalic infants because brain death criteria are not fulfilled.
A controversy surrounds
attempts to override this "brain death" criterion. Some desire to revise
the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act to allow removal of organs from live patients;
others want to include anencephaly as a variant of "brain dead"; while
others would hope to define anencephalic infants as nonhuman. The Church
evaluates these approaches as misguided and reaffirms its teaching that:
"The determination of death should be made by the physician or competent
medical authority in accordance with responsible and commonly accepted
scientific criteria" (Ethical and Religious Directives, n. 62).
Conclusion
MORAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING
INFANTS WITH
ANENCEPHALY
Observations on the NCCB
Document
By Fr Benedict Ashley,
O.P.
Published in L’Osservatore
Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See,
Vatican, September 23,
1998
This is an excellent commentary
by Fr. Benedict Ashley. Due
to lack of space we are
unable to include the entire
commentary. You can find
the entire commentary at http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=543
If this link does not work,
contact us mlmhopeinturmoil@rogers.com
and we will email you the
entire document.
Conclusion
Thus the statement by
the Committee on Doctrine of the U.S. National Conference of Catholic Bishops,
in conformity with the teaching of the Holy See on the dignity of human
life and the evil of abortion and euthanasia, seeks to advocate the right
to life of the child with anencephaly, grave as is the child's organic
pathology, because the child is a living person. It urges parents, even
at the cost of great personal sacrifice. It especially urges the medical
profession to give the parents of these children all needed support in
this serious obligation. Ordinarily this responsibility is to see that
the child has the benefit of a normal gestation before and after "viability".
Only when the mother suffers from a life-threatening pathology may the
child's life, even after viability, be gravely risked and then only as
the indirect effect of the necessary treatment of the mother's pathology.
After the child with anencephaly has been delivered alive it must be given
whatever care that is to the child's benefit and which manifests respect
for the child's dignity as a person. It is not obligatory, however, to
give the infant with anencephaly forms of care or treatment whose benefit
to the child is not proportionate to the burden to caretakers. When the
child's death has certainly occurred, but only then, the child's parents
or other proxies may give consent to the immediate removal of the child's
organs for transplantation. The purpose of this pastoral statement from
the Committee on Doctrine of the U.S. National Catholic Bishops' Conference,
therefore, is to apply the authoritative teaching of Pope John Paul II
in The Gospel of Life, as well as other documents of the Holy See, to this
sorrow-laden situation of the child with anencephaly. It joins the Holy
Father in making "a vigorous reaffirmation of the value of human life and
its inviolability, and at the same time a pressing appeal addressed to
each and every person in the name of God: Respect, protect, love and
serve life, every human life! Only in this direction will you find justice,
development, true freedom, peace and happiness!".29
RECEIVING A CHILD WITH JOY By Archbishop T. Prendergast, S.J. GOD’S WORD ON SUNDAY column December 22, 2002 The Catholic Register
Feast of the Holy Family (Year B) Dec. 29 (Texts: Genesis 15:1-6; 17:3b-5, 15-16; 21:1-7 [Psalm 105]; Hebrews 11:8, 11-12, 17-19; Luke 2:22-40)
Several years ago, I learned of the burden carried by couples that has lost a child by miscarriage. The deprivation of a baby they had eagerly awaited left them grieving. For some, their sorrow was compounded by well-meant but hurtful comments from relatives and friends. As well, the faith community seemed to have little to say to their predicament. Mostly, their anguish went unseen, unheard.
I discovered an answer to the pain such parents suffered in Morning Light Ministry, a service begun in Mississauga, Ont., by Bernadette Zambri, who had experienced a stillbirth and felt the lack of response to her situation by her church community. Its reach now extends to other forms of loss of life in the womb.
Morning Light Ministry is a Catholic outreach program offering information and support on many levels for bereaved mothers and bereaved fathers who have experienced the death of their baby through ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth or early infant death up to one year old.
Recently, the ministry has begun to help parents to bring their babies to full-term despite an adverse prenatal diagnosis for such conditions as Down syndrome, Spina Bifida, Anencephaly and Trisomy 18. For many parents are pressured to "terminate the pregnancy" through "medical termination" which is another word for abortion, either through "induced abortion" or "early induction of labour". Sometimes the medical community uses other terms, such as "interruption of pregnancy" or "genetic termination".
While most Catholics understand and agree with the prohibition against elective abortions-abortions undertaken because the pregnancy is unwanted-many do not realize that a so-called selective termination of pregnancy or genetic abortion-undertaken because of the discovery of a fetal anomaly-is also a direct abortion and so prohibited according to Catholic teaching. This includes terminations undertaken for fatal conditions such as anencephaly and serious but not life-threatening conditions such as Down syndrome.
Some Catholics-including clergy-seem to treat genetic terminations as regrettable but permissible, but they are wrong to teach this. This is a major issue of pastoral concern because the pressure to abort once an anomaly has been detected is enormous. It is essential, for the sake of the child and for the parents, that priests and others, to whom they may turn at such a terrible time, be clear about Catholic teaching on this point and supportive of it.
This year’s celebration of the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph occurs on the day after the church observes the Feast of the Holy Innocents, when several dioceses honour those involved in activities that favour life and try to foster a culture of life.
In light of the complex challenges now facing family life, the readings for this year’s Solemnity of the Holy Family invite disciples to reflect on the sacredness of life from the moment of conception to that of natural death. They tell of the joy of welcoming new life in a child.
Taken from several chapters of Genesis, the first reading introduces the elderly couple Abraham and Sarah whose life appeared to be meaningless because they were childless. God entered the scene and renewed the promise that they would have offspring as numerous as the stars in the heavens.
In the Gospel, an elderly couple encounters the Child Jesus in the Temple. We see in the meeting of Simeon with Jesus and His parents, the meeting of two generations, one declining, the other rising. Simeon represents the Israelite covenant that welcomes the coming new covenant.
Simeon summarizes his life and the expectations of faithful Israel in his prayer, known as the Nunc dimittis (from the first words of the Latin version) prayed every evening at Compline.
Simeon’s prayer is a swan song, that melodious sound which antiquity attributed to the swan as it prepared to die. For a fleeting moment Jesus brought deep joy and consolation into the hearts of many who heard of the happening, but especially to the seniors Simeon and Anna who had shared in the joyous moment.
Though Simeon foresees suffering in the futures of Mary and Jesus, the Holy Spirit also moves him to foretell the glory of Jesus’ resurrection, which overcomes the shame of the cross, of loss. Anna, modelling hopes that God’s promises would be fulfilled, shows that once the Child Jesus has been encountered one can’t help but tell others.
NCBC STATEMENT ON EARLY INDUCTION OF LABOR
March 11, 2004
>BOSTON, MA— The National Catholic
Bioethics Center wishes to assist individuals and institutions working
with the ethical issue of early induction of labor. The following is
the NCBC position regarding the application
of Catholic moral teaching and tradition to the issue.
>The application of Catholic moral teaching
and tradition to this issue is directed toward two specific ends: (1)
complete avoidance of direct abortion, and (2) preservation of the
lives of both mother and child to the extent
possible under the circumstances. Based upon these ends, the Ethical
and Religious Directives for Catholic
Health Care Services provides directives which set the parameters for
the treatment of mother and unborn
child in cases of high-risk pregnancies:>
47. Operations, treatments, and
medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a
proportionately
serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when
they cannot be safely postponed
until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death
of the unborn child.
49. For a proportionate reason, labor may be induced after the fetus is viable.
The principle of the double effect is at
work in each of these two directives. Actions that might result in the
death of a child are morally permitted only if all of the following
conditions are met: (1) treatment is directly
therapeutic in response to a serious pathology of the mother or child;
(2) the good effect of curing the
disease is intended and the bad effect foreseen but unintended; (3) the
death of the child is not the means
by which the good effect is achieved; and (4) the good of curing the
disease is proportionate to the risk of
the bad effect. Fulfillment of all four conditions precludes any
act that directly hastens the death of a child.
Early induction of labor for
chorioamnionitis, preeclampsia, and H.E.L.L.P. syndrome, for example,
can be
morally licit under the conditions just described because it directly
cures a pathology by evacuating the
infected membranes in the case of chorioamnionitis, or the diseased
placenta in the other cases, and cannot
be safely postponed. However, early induction of an anencephalic child
when there is no serious pathology
of the mother which is being directly treated is not morally licit,
emotional distress notwithstanding. Early
induction of labor before term (37 weeks) to relieve emotional distress
hastens the death of the child as a
means of achieving this presumed good effect and unjustifiably deprives
the child of the good of gestation.
Moreover, this distress is amenable to psychological support such as is
offered in perinatal hospice. Lastly,
induction of labor before term performed simply for the reason that the
child has a lethal anomaly is direct
abortion.
l Introduction/Home
l l A
Little Bit About Us l
This site was designed by
l Grieving
Parent's Prayer l
l Special Prayer of the Faithful l
l Mementos
l l Fertility
Challenges l l Morning
Light Book l l Our
Babies Are Safe l
l Hope
in Turmoil l l Church
Teaching Regarding Pregnancy Termination l
l Parent
Comments l l News
Articles l l Book/Booklet
Order Form l l Donations
l
l Credits
l l Contact Us l
Michele
- Gabriela Lael's Mommy
for Morning Light Ministry
© 2007