God thwarts the high-priests of medicine. Baby refuses to be aborted.

[Andrew P.C.]

Respectfully Scott, I disagree. The doctors weren't trying to remove a dangerous tumor or defective part, they were trying to kill a baby. By kill, I mean 'to take someone's life without a just cause'. Obviously, the baby proved that the doctors advice was mere speculation and speculation is not a just cause to kill. I stand by my labeling these doctors as 'high-priests' of medicine. This wasn't medicine, it was prognostication and guessing. They tried to kill a healthy baby.

That is amazing!

I don't think the doctors can be faulted for their decision. With the limited information they had they believed that they had to choose between one child dying and both children dying. We don't know for sure, but both children may have died if the placenta was not divided. Calling them "high-priests of medicine" is uncalled for; their intention was to save the other child.

I believe we should go as far as putting both the doctors and the mother on trial for ATTEMPT of murder. Even though this won't happen in real life, I believe this should be done. (As you can tell, I'm hardcore ANTI-abortion.)

 

[Croghanite]

Hold it, time out. For the most part, 'baby hating abortionist' is a myth. Remember, to the pro-abortion side we are facists you are against the rights of privacy and free choice. To them, it's really not about the baby it's about rights and freedom and mother's choice. We all know that in effect they might as well BE 'baby hating' but that's really not what they are. We argue for life, they argue for rights, we aren't on the same page and that's what makes dialog nearly impossible. An abortionist is an abortionist regardless of the LANGUAGE used to justify what he does, or why he does it, to the baby.

I have never met a baby-hating abortionist. What is at issue is Genesis 9:6 and the 'image of God, and the sixth commandment - you shall not kill without just cause. The issue is NOT the intentions for why killing is done but should the killing be considered in the first place.

I agree that ‘baby hating abortionist’ is perhaps an unhelpful stereotype which I should not have used. I also agree that the fundamental issue is not so much the attitude towards babies per se, but a respect for life.

I would still say that – FROM WHAT WE KNOW FROM THE ARTICLE ALONE – the issue is not quite as simple as some make it out to be. If I am wrong I would like to see where.

I have already said that I think the decision the doctors (and mother) made was perhaps not in faith.

However, as Bob said above, the issue is killing without just cause. As a general statement, I believe the preservation of life constitutes a just cause. I am not saying I would go so far as to say such a principle can be applied to the case at hand. But I do not believe it is blindingly obvious from the bible that it cannot. Again, if I am wrong I would be grateful to be shown how.

Here are some quotes I took from the article;

When doctors found that Gabriel was weaker than his brother, with an enlarged heart, and believed he was going to die in the womb, his mother Rebecca Jones had to make a heartbreaking decision.
.
.
Doctors told her his death could cause his twin brother to die too before they were born, and that it would be better to end Gabriel's suffering sooner rather than later.
.
.
They said it would be impossible to keep him alive afterwards as he was so poorly.

If we were faced in a situation where one of the twins was certainly or very likely to die, and his death might endanger the other child, would the doctors really be wrong to take the action they attempted to do? If one child was very likely to die, is it wrong to abort it to save the life of the other? I am very happy to admit the answer might well be yes. But I want to see the biblical reasoning why.

My question is perhaps a little similar in intent (I think) to the one posted by Daniel Ritchie in this thread:

I have often heard people say that abortion is legitimate only if the pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life.

How can such a view be justified? Is there any Biblical support for such an argument? To me, I can't see how there is. And this is a matter which we need to be right on as people's lives are at stake.

I used to be pretty sure that I was acceptable in the sight of God to abort a baby if the mother’s life was in danger. After giving the matter some thought I have retracted somewhat from that position and agree with Daniel that I find it hard to find biblical support for such a position. However, the situation in the article deals with a situation where, from at least what I can see, the child was not likely to survive. As it turned out, this was not true. However, as I said in my earlier post, we can only make decisions on the information we have at the time. We are to protect life where we can, and although it is a horrendous decision, ending one life to avoid losing both is, on my current understanding, not necessarily an evil decision, especially if that life was likely to fail naturally.

How about we just don't attempt to murder anyone for any reason. Lets just take the murder option off the table and then go from there.

 

[BobVigneault]

I guess it depends on how you're defining life support. I would give as an example somebody being kept alive artificially after brainwave activity has stopped and the bodily processes won't continue without artificial inducement.

Unfortunately, many define it as removing a feeding tube and letting a person starve to death. In the case of this healthy baby boy there is nothing akin to removing from life support. The life support that this baby was on was his mother and the natural processes of gestation. If you are saying that to cut the umbilical cord and letting the baby starve is a form of 'removal from life support' then I would answer yes to your question. In fact, it's murder.

euthanasia - sounds like a duck,
cutting off life support - walks like a duck,
abortion - looks like a duck,
It's a duck!

Are you saying that cutting off life support is morally equivalent to euthanasia?

 

[historyb]

I believe we should go as far as putting both the doctors and the mother on trial for ATTEMPT of murder. Even though this won't happen in real life, I believe this should be done. (As you can tell, I'm hardcore ANTI-abortion.)

 

[SRoper]

From the article:

"Doctors told her his death could cause his twin brother to die too before they were born, and that it would be better to end Gabriel's suffering sooner rather than later."

[...]

"Mrs Jones said: "They told us that if he died, it could be life threatening for his brother."

Well that's a good observation. I think cutting off the fetus would only be justified if the child was known to be non-viable beyond a reasonable doubt. If the doctors didn't have enough information to act then their action was not justified. An obvious example (to my mind, at least) would be if one twin did not have a required organ such as a brain.

I guess it depends on how you're defining life support. I would give as an example somebody being kept alive artificially after brainwave activity has stopped and the bodily processes won't continue without artificial inducement.

Unfortunately, many define it as removing a feeding tube and letting a person starve to death. In the case of this healthy baby boy there is nothing akin to removing from life support. The life support that this baby was on was his mother and the natural processes of gestation. If you are saying that to cut the umbilical cord and letting the baby starve is a form of 'removal from life support' then I would answer yes to your question. In fact, it's murder.

I guess I've never understood this distinction. A feeding tube is also artificial inducement. I'll have to read more on this particular subject.

 

[Pergamum]

SOme thoughts:

The principle of double effect is in play in a lot of these scenarios.

EXAMPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT: If a patient is dying and in much pain and morphine (which reduces respirations and hastens death in many cases) were given by DOCTOR WHITE, who gives it to reduce the pain, and then the patient dies, then Dr WHITE is not guilty because the death was an unintended - though foreseen - consequence. Intentions figure large. DOCTOR BLACK on the other hand gives the patient morphine for the purpose of ending his suffering. DOCTOR BLACK is guilty because the patient dies as a result of an intended action to kill the patient. SUMMARY: Same result from the same action, but with two different intentions. ONe is fulll of guilt and the other is innocent.


A doctor COULD innocently perform an action to save one baby with no intention of killing the other baby, even though the death of the second baby might result. The death of the baby is not the intended consequence and all efforts would be made to save both. IF that is the case, then the doctor would not be quilty, even if the baby died.

It all depends on the nature of the operation. Was it to correct an abnormality and hopefully save both babies or was it expressly to kill the second baby? What were the aims and intentions of said operation?


SECOND:

Food and water are not medicine nor extraordinary measures. Removing someone from fod and water or Oxygen never seems justifiable. A dibetic needs insulin but if we were to withhold this from a living patient to hasten his death, then this would be evil. Likewsie with a comatose patient who still has brain waves (i.e. still alive), starving them is alays wrong.