As someone who strongly believes that one life is no more or no less valuable than any other, I sought to discover what the standard of practice actually is in cases like that of Savita Halappanavar. Of course with so little known about her case, I sought answers based on the scenario that Savita tragically suffered from second trimester septic inevitable miscarriage. In this scenario, what are the standards of care, and what do obstetricians believe and practice? A pair of experienced Senior Obstetricians from MaterCare International wrote their response,
MaterCare agrees with the opinion of Dr John Bonnar, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology who explained, in 2000, to an all party Irish parliamentary Committee considering abortion; “In current obstetrical practice rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention is required at a stage in pregnancy when there will be little or no prospect for the survival of the baby, due to extreme immaturity. In these exceptional situations failure to intervene may result in the death of both the mother and baby. We consider that there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect the life of the mother”.
Such an approach is justified ethically by the Principle of Double Effect, (a time honoured principle based on Aristotelian principles), which states that is morally permissible to carry out a procedure that has two effects, one good and the other bad which are practically inseparable.
Was Savita Halappanavar a victim of malpractice? I think there is certainly a strong possibility, but I would agree that there is indeed a very big difference between inducing labour in an attempt to save the lives of both mother and child and performing an abortion, which does not attempt or lend itself to the possibility of saving the life of the child.
by 
Don’t feed the trolls, Dan.
Jennifer—“I sought answers based on the scenario that Savita tragically suffered from second trimester septic inevitable miscarriage.”
It doesn’t sound like the miscarriage was the source of the infection.
It could very well have been that the infection that was to end up taking Savita Halappanavar’s life was also what caused her to miscarry. When an antibiotic-resistant strain of bacteria runs amuck, doctors are powerless to stop it. The only thing that can stop it is the body’s own immune system. Now, giving birth/having an abortion is a highly stressful event that taxes even a healthy immune system. As long as the baby was still alive it wasn’t adding a further source of infection to her system, and, it could very well be that the doctors thought she would have a better chance if she suffered through rather than be subject to the drastic trauma of an abortion.
This is the kind of scenario for which you really can’t develop a protocol. The doctors were, by necessity, flying by the seat of their pants. If they were indeed negligent, I hope they will be held accountable, but, right now, it seems as if they were really trying to do their best when faced with a nigh impossible situation.
May her family find the truth and consolation that they seek. Let perpetual light shine upon her. May she rest in peace.
@Melissa, you’re absolutely right. I should have said that I went on the belief that Savita was suffering from a life-threatening infection and would require a septic inevitable miscarriage. More details are coming to light each day, and I hope that her family finds some sort of resolution during an impossibly difficult time.
Actually, I think the Principle of Double Effect originates with Aquinas (c1250). But that’s neither here nor there. There is a difference, of course, between legislative definitions created by nation states and the theological and philosophical principles those laws are (hopefully) influenced by. They participate and compete in different realms of discussion. Laws ought always be up for reform and debate in my opinion, and philosophical principles ought regularly be challenged (in the hopes that the best and most true arguments win). Why do people still adhere to the Principle of Double Effect? Because it is still the strongest argument standing, at least in the realms in which it is discussed and debated.
Fern Hill can’t tell the difference between an irrational law and a rational philosophical principle.