Today the Post ran this story about a London-area Catholic hospital, St. Joseph’s, and whether or not they have been doing early induction abortions over the past twenty years. The story is a long, in depth look at a rare but very difficult and sad thing: babies who are diagnosed with things like anencephaly in the womb, who won’t live past birth–and whose delivery may pose a threat to the life of the mother. The question is what to do at a pro-life hospital.
What I read in the Post today makes it sound as though they have adopted a very thoughtful approach with grave concern for the lives of mom and baby–they induce labour but not until after viability–that way if there’s been a mistake the baby receives care and lives and the mom is safe too.
I’m not a medical doctor–so actually, I’d appreciate it if some of those weighed in. I suppose two questions would be is the life of the mother threatened by delivering such a baby at term, and is it true that these babies never live? (We have our own thoughtful ethicist on the PWPL team here, however, she may be in labour as I type this.)
But sounds to me like the initial reports, like this one, were off base. We shouldn’t bandy about the word “eugenics”–it will lose its potency for the instances where eugenics truly is a factor. I’m open to hearing the other side, as usual, but sounds to me like this Catholic hospital is doing an admirable job of balancing what has to be the most heartwrenching scenario for any parent.
The piece ends with this:
Years ago, we didn’t know about the complications,” Fr. Prieur said. “We didn’t have these very sophisticated diagnostic tools. So sometimes the risks suddenly appeared and it was a high-risk pregnancy and you may have minutes to save the mother and the baby. Now we know. And with that knowledge do we have to wait till that crisis occurs, or do you intervene earlier? That’s part of the rationale of what we’re doing with early induction.”
It also means there is time to plan for the psychological and spiritual support of the family, a key component of how the hospital deals with the trauma.
When the baby is delivered, the parents have a chance to hold it quietly for a few minutes as the life drains out. A priest is often in the room to perform a baptism and someone trained to take a family photo if that is requested.
“For the vast majority of people there is a sense of peace,” Dr. Coughlin said. “The baby they were expecting to look very abnormal may not be as abnormal as they thought.”
“Many times I’ve walked home and say to myself, ‘We’ve held a human being in the palm of our hands,’ ” added Fr. Prieur. “This is not easy. This is the most difficult area for us Catholics.”
_________________________
Brigitte adds: I noted with much interest the following bit:
There are no s pecific Church guidelines in Canada when it comes to early induction. So LifeSite looked to guidelines laid out by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the U.S. National Catholic Bioethics Center to draw a judgment about what was going on at St. Joseph’s.
It cited Directive 45 of the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services,” which states: “Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) 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 St. Joseph’s guidelines for early induction says the same thing: “Procedures whose immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability are considered direct abortions.”
I am no ethicist, and also not a doctor. But it seems to me that if the intention is not to terminate the pregnancy, and that if every reasonable measure is taken to try and save the lives of both mother and child, then it’s not an abortion. Like Andrea, I’m willing to hear the other side. But I would certainly refrain from calling people like Fr. Prieur ugly names.
_________________________
Patricia says: Brigitte and Andrea, I don’t agree with you on this one.
I am not a doctor or an ethicist, but the procedure described in the article troubles me (to put it mildly) for several reasons.
Firstly, there is a big difference between the early intervention policy of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the policy in place at St. Joseph’s. Under the US Bishops’ policy, “the psychological condition of the mother is never enough to do an early induction; it is allowed under the St. Joseph’s guidelines”. Fr Prieur comments in the article that “[i]f a mother is suicidal because she is carrying a baby that will not survive, that would be a reason to do an early induction”. The article then says that he could recall only one or two cases in which psychological well-being was enough to do an early induction, but it does seem to me that the rationalization of psychological well-being is broad enough to drive a truck through. This leaves me wondering how strict the requirement of risk to maternal health must be when it is used as a justification for early induction.
I am curious about the statistic that “one-third of the deaths of pregnant women is caused by lethal fetal anomalies”. I have never heard that before. I did a quick Google search of “causes of maternal death”, “maternal death and fetal anencephaly”, and “maternal death and fetal anomalies”. I found an abstract of one article in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology that states that “continuation of pregnancy after a diagnosis of anencephaly is medically safe and should be considered as an option”. But that hardly represents a comprehensive review of the subject and I would be grateful for any expert insights on this issue.
I have to say that I find the whole “humane” procedure described in the article chilling. The proponents claim that 23 weeks is the magic number of viability: “What is key for them (the practitioners and ethicists at St. Joe’s) is that labour is not induced until at least 23 weeks, so if the baby is born alive, everything possible could be done to save it. And if the diagnosis is wrong, the child would have a chance”.
Okay, so, have any babies actually survived this process, even for a day or two? If a baby does survive the induction and delivery, who decides whether “everything possible” is done to save it (because I suspect that there isn’t a lot of time in which to make this decision) or whether the parents will simply “have a chance to hold it quietly for a few minutes as the life drains out of it”. Doesn’t that sound so natural – “the life draining out of it”, except that we have just stacked every card in the deck to make sure that that life is certain to drain out of it (it? shouldn’t that be he or she?).
Finally, I am a little suspicious of so-called lethal fetal diagnoses. What conditions do they apply to? The article refers only to anencephaly and, tragically, a child with anencephaly who survives to birth does only live for a very short time. The same article I referred to above sets out some pretty heart-wrenching statistics: in its study of 211 pregnancies where a diagnosis of anencephaly had been made, “one hundred and fifty-three (72%) of anencephalic offspring were liveborn, of those, 103 (67%) died within 24 hours but 6/211 survived 6 or more days (maximum 28 days)”. What should we do for a life of 28 days? For 6 days? For 6 hours? How do we know in advance what length of time we are dealing with? A child with trisomy 13 or 18 (other conditions commonly described as “lethal”) may live for days, months or years (see, for example, http://www.livingwithtrisomy13.org/trisomy-13.htm). One mother of a child with trisomy 13 has told me that to determine a life expectancy of a baby based simply on a determination of trisomy 13 is like determining life expectancy of an adult basis on a diagnosis of “cancer” without taking into consideration whether it’s skin, lung or liver cancer, whether it’s stage 1 or stage 3. There is a wide range of degree of affliction with many of these conditions, just as there is with Down Syndrome. My friend’s experience is that this is rarely taken into consideration by doctors, many of whom assume that these conditions are a death sentence and wouldn’t we all be better to just move on.
I agree that the word “eugenic” should be used carefully. But we live in a country where 80-90% of children prenatally diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted. And our health system’s biggest initiative on Down Syndrome is to make sure that we get that new test (“Now know even earlier in your pregnancy!”) out on the market as quickly as possible. It’s a big old eugenic world out there and I think that an organization such as LifeSite is right to scrutinize a practice such as this. The fact is that we would not even be having this discussion if they had not made the procedure public.
_____________________
Andrea adds: Thanks, Trish, for being suspicious. (I mean that.) I have no desire to naively accept the Post report at face value. (And I was concerned about the loophole for mental distress, which is indeed a loophole large enough to drive a truck through, it’s true.) It could be this hospital has allowed for excuses to kill a baby early. It could be. It could also be that the mother’s life will genuinely end if they don’t induce. And that’s what I’m keen on learning about. I also took issue, I should add, with the headline “when good medicine and religious teaching collide). Because ethical treatments are good treatments, period. (This is not about religion versus good treatment.)
______________________
Andrea is starting to realize she got it wrong: and will post again on this topic, once I confirm a few facts and details. In any event, thank you to all those who took the time to write thoughtful comments and point out new information/a new way of seeing this story. I’m sorry to say I was taken in by the Post report. My new look at this would be they are certainly aborting, and most likely unnecessarily so (ie not to save the life of the mother–but that’s what I’m waiting to hear back about from a few ob-gyns). I suppose I wanted to believe the best about that hospital; as a non-Catholic; I tend to believe that Catholics are the ones who hold the line on this topic. I suppose it was somewhat naive of me to believe that no Catholic could ever make a mistake. (All the more discouraging then, when they make up fancy covers to get around what they are actually doing to convince the ill-informed among us…which apparently includes me.)
by 
Sorry, but I have to weigh in on the side of taking offense to Father Prieur here. The story was written up on LifeSiteNews about two months ago, and it stated there that this priest and a team of about 15 people meet to pray about the course of action, then they induce early labour and let nature take its course. No mention that they decide against early labour.
Many many times, these tests give false results and you have the case of a woman losing a child whose health is not as thought, whose disability is not what they predicted, there are many mistakes made with these in utero tests.
A woman who is carrying a baby with a health problem, will not feel better sooner if she has that baby delivered earlier. She still will have to grieve that child, plus she will have to live with the possibility that she hastened that child’s death.
There is a pro life doctor whose approach is one that I much prefer. He supports his patients to carry through their pregnancy and they help the parents deal with the necessary grief both during and after delivery.
http://www.choicesmc.org/
Having had two friends who lost children within hours of birth due to heart defects, I don’t believe that bringing that baby earlier than due is going to solve anything for the mother. She will still have to grieve the child and many women grow through those pregnancies in ways that I cannot even begin to comprehend. Shortening the pregnancy does not reduce the suffering.
There are a number of hospices that deal with just these situations, and the staff there support mothers through the pregnancies and prepare them for the death of their baby. This is a vital part of the entire process, and I venture to say those women who let nature run its course with proper support, are probably better off psychologically in the end.
I have no time for the Father Prieurs of this world, they are exactly the type of people who confuse life and death issues with their false compassion; what they should be doing is giving real support to these women, not bringing birth earlier and then leaving these women dealing with both the death and the early termination of their pregnancy.
My sister-in-law and her husband had a child who only lived hours after birth. He was properly diagnosed as severely disabled before birth (partly because they have an older girl who is also severely disabled – although with what exactly, they don’t know). I know absolutely that they are against early induction (at least in the sense of shortening the pregnancy for their sake) unless it were somehow indicated that it would help the child (maybe a slightly less-traumatic delivery if the baby was a little smaller? – sorry, I’m not a doctor either). I think they went through that entire pregnancy expecting the worst (their older girl is extremely disabled), and they got it when he died shortly after birth. I also know they (especially the mother) appreciated the opportunity to ‘hold’ their baby for those long months of pregnancy, even if they only got the chance to hold him in their hands for a couple short hours.
I stopped reading LifeSite News 3 or 4 years ago. I can’t stand it.
Julie…
Even if Father Prieur’s decision is poor or could be improved, I think the important point is that it’s not a decision to perform abortions at a Catholic hospital (nevermind wherever the eugenics is supposed to fit in). If there is a better approach, it should be taken, but I think the real controversy here is the suggestion that the hospital was somehow secretly performing abortions. I would think twice before making ad hominem attacks about the “Father Prieurs of this world” and what “those type of people” are confusing. Do you know the man?
I think an article titled Twenty Years of Eugenic Abortion at Ontario Catholic Hospital is what’s confusing (among other things… sensational, uncharitable… I could go on).
This is not an easy situation. It’s good, I suppose, that LifeSite has drawn attention to the issue so it will receive more scrutiny, but the world would be a better place if they could be a little more… kind… about it.
I’d much prefer to talk about the actual decision and its effects than to question the character or integrity of a man who’s clearly on our side and trying to do the right thing.
I think hearing both sides is good, but I still have an uneasy feeling in my stomach when I read about what is being done at this hospital. They state that “labour is not induced until at least 23 weeks, when the fetus has reached viability, so if the baby is born alive everything possible could be done to save it.” But we all know that at 23 weeks, even a completely healthy fetus is at tremendous risk and does not have great odds of survival. Making the next statement (“If the diagnosis was wrong, the child would still have a chance”) ring pretty hollow. It seems ludicrous to claim that everything possible is being done to save the child when it is induced so early as to almost guarantee its death? Perhaps if they waited until closer to 32 weeks to induce. But 23?!!
Also – most of us are uncomfortable when pro-choice proponents say that abortion is “medically necessary” for the mental health of the mother. (In the words of my husband…not wanting a baby is not a fatal condition). Doesn’t it seem like a slippery slope for St. Joe’s to turn around and say their guidelines permit early induction (read: almost guaranteed infant death) based on the psychological condition of the mother, without any demonstrated medical or physical danger to her? Granted, only a few early inductions have been granted using this criterion, but since the child’s hastened death was virtually guaranteed, I can’t see a real distinction between this argument and that of any pro-abortionist who claims “mental health” of the mother.
I know there may be more to the story than what I can glean in the Post article, but the whole thing still does not sit well with me, and what I read did not assuage my unease.
It seems to me that we pro-lifers would do well to remember that while the vast majority of abortions are performed for lifestyle factors, these “early inductions” are performed when there is a true health risk to the mother. These are a handful of cases that really do fall into that grey area where abortion is concerned. Rather than raise our hackles at a Catholic hospital that is trying to stay true to Catholic teaching, we would probably all be better off if the pro-lifers would stay focused fighting abortion for choice reasons, rather than abortion for health reasons.
That being said, I am uncomfortable with Fr. Prieur’s claim that “Early induction is not abortion.” Seems to me that, if the procedure that led to the birth of Gianna Jessen is an abortion, and the procedure that led to the fiasco that was the birth of Shanice Osbourne in Florida was an abortion, then these early inductions are a euphemism for late-term abortions. The difference, of course, is that the babies are treated as dying human beings should be treated, and not as medical waste.
The two reports tell a very different story. For instance induction does not treat “psychological indications”. If you’re suicidal, you need a psychiatrist, not an abortion.
Lifesite says “He is widely known as one of the nation’s foremost defenders of the Winnipeg Statement”
If this is true, to me, that casts a lot of doubt on what Fr. Prieur is saying. Because in the report, a lot of what he says is not wrong– but as a pro-lifer I truly wonder about the application of pro-life ethics in the details. For instance, when I read that abortions should be done for “proportionate” reasons, that sounds like proportionalism, and that sets off red flags for me.
It sounds like the National Post article is a spin-piece to reply to LifesiteNews. I wouldn’t say Fr. Prieur is pro-abortion by a long-shot, but the feel of both reports gives me the hunch that he is not exactly orthodox in his application of pro-life principles in “difficult” pregnancies. You don’t terminate a pregnancy for the purpose of saving the baby’s life. The baby’s best chances are INSIDE the womb at the time of development. If it really is to save the life of the mother, then it’s fine, but to do it so that the parents can watch the baby die– that’s just wrong.
Patricia, well said.
I quote from the article in the National Post:
“We could do termination anytime during the pregnancy,” said Dr. Ori Nevo, a specialist in maternal fetal medicine at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto. He said induction is sometimes an option as well, but he said there is no gain in waiting for viability since the outcome for the fetus in any event is death.”
The policy of this hospital in inducing labour past the “point of viability” is, in fact, just their way of getting around the label of “abortion”, since they do not actually kill the baby in the process. They wait for the death to follow the process.
Note Dr. Nevo states “the outcome for the fetus in any event is death”, why wait for viability then? just so that you can say you did give it that chance? whereas in fact it has no chance.
No, they can’t be accused of “abortion”, but they can be accused of “infanticide”.
What is the difference between what they are doing and what Jill Stanek blew the whistle on when she found a baby dying in a linen closet after an early induction of labour? oh, I forgot, the parents weren’t there to hold that baby, that is what Jill did, since that baby was unwanted.
Just because the parents figure into this situation, in that they wanted this baby, it doesn’t change what is actually being done to the baby. The pro life case will always rest with the baby’s life, not the advantages to the mother. And I am not saying here, that a mother’s life should be weighed against the baby’s, that is simply ridiculous and I don’t know a single pro life person who advocates saving the baby over the mother.
I think that Father Prieur has been using casuistry and semantics for many years to justify what he believes to be the compassionate action. Words do not change what is being done; a child is delivered early and its death brought about earlier in order to alleviate the suffering of the mother. I sincerely question his reasoning, and I do not believe that he has followed Catholic teaching in this. If he spent time speaking with ethicists and theologians about this line of thought, I suggest he was very selective about whom he spoke to.
One of my concerns is that this man has been teaching in a seminary for 25 years, forming future priests with his theology and ethics. Is it any wonder we don’t have priests who are more outspoken for life in this country? With teachers like this, we are getting more of the situation ethics that has predominated the Church for decades.
As for LifeSiteNews being radical and exteme, the pro life position is radical. It does divide those who are pro abortion from those who are against abortion. To ask it to be more moderate, would be to ask it to cater to the mushy middle ground.
People get extreme about this issue, because it is extreme. We are talking about killing babies here, that is and will always be the center of the debate. I am not saying that we dismiss the mother’s feelings, but she only has those feelings because she is deciding whether or not to have her child killed.
I was a student of Father Prieur’s 30 years ago! He is a good priest and I would trust his judgement. No one should ever call him names. But when I did live in London Ontario 30 years ago I had a home birth and I remember saying to my doctor, who was very pro-life, that for an emergency I had to go to St. Josesph’s Hosptal for I was pro-life. I was shocked when he said back to me “What makes you think they do not do abortions there? They just call it something else. ” So while I love Father Prieur and would trust him, I am not sure everyone else there would be the same.
It would certainly be wonderful if we could all follow St. Gemma Molla.
BTW I know for a fact that Father Prieur does not support the Winnipeg statement. I use to go into his classes for priests and teach NFP to them. He is a very good Priest who is presented with very hard cases.
My commentary on this story here:
http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=1539
Diane said: “BTW I know for a fact that Father Prieur does not support the Winnipeg statement…”
Actually, that is not true Dianne. I saw an article in the Catholic Register where Fr. Prieur defended the Winnipeg Statement. See my response for the link to Msgr. Foy’s rebuttal to Fr. Prieur.
I guess Julie wrote this after her comments above, but its worth a read.
http://concernedforlife.blogspot.com/2009/02/its-about-baby.html
She’s right. Its about the baby, and its pure sophistry on the part of St. Joseph’s, to ‘go around’ being labeled abortionists by inducing early knowing that the baby cannot survive early birth.
It is warped thinking to opt for ‘early induction’ rather than suport for the family to give the baby its ‘time of life’, and much more compassionate all around.
I’m sorry for people with emotional attachments to Fr. Prieur, but this is his hospital, and he is the one speaking up in defense of this procedure. Oter doctors have recognized it for what it is, and Lifesite News has done an admirable job, as always, of putting the truth in our face.
Its About The Baby. Deal.
By the way, I’m a little curious about the title of this post. Was it to draw readers?
Rarely have I read or seen or experienced a prolifer going ‘overboard’. Its practically impossible to do, considering the number of babies killed daily, almost any action by almost anyone will have impact. Even making someone angry is an impact , and draws someone into a ‘discussion’ about abortion.
In my experience, people wish to avoid the reality of what we have become as a society . The don’t want to have the truth put in their face. They feel pressure to care one way or another about it, and they don’t want to think about it at all. The more that can be done to pressure people to think, one way or another about it, while the compassionae people do their compassionate thing, and the prayerful people do their praying, and the post abortion helpers help etc… the more the whole package will wake people up.
One way or another.
“By the way, I’m a little curious about the title of this post. Was it to draw readers?”
In my mind, though the situation we are discussing is grave indeed, and important, using the term “eugenics” to describe it is misleading. This is not a case of looking for “deformity” and then killing as a result. I have never hesitated to use the term eugenics where necessary–for example, with tests to find out earlier if a child has Downs. But I don’t think what is happening at St. Joseph’s is eugenics–though what they are doing may well be wrong, and that’s what we are discussing–I don’t think it’s eugenics. That’s what was “overboard” to me.
I very much disagree you on this one Andrea.
This is the beginning of eugenics. Labeling a life according to a genetic disposition and then providing a course of treatment (early induction abortion) or supportive only treatment once the child is born is inherently discriminatory.
Government policies are then designed that pick up on the label of lethality and deprive babies born with these conditions from something as simple as an at-home apnea monitor and possible life saving treatment, if it might be in their best interests.
It is wrong to make a judgment and determination based on a genetic label. Every human life is special and UNIQUE and deserving of its own treatment plan.
As the mother of a child who received a prenatal diagnosis, I can tell you that I loved my baby from the time I knew of her existence and the fact that her life was possibly not going to be a long one, did not mean that I could consider shortening it even more.
What mothers need in these situation is compassion and support. Studies show that when women are offered the support they need to bring their babies to term, 40-80% choose that option.
I sure would like to know about why one-third of fetuses with anencephaly risk their mothers life. How amazing that these events all occur smack dab at 23 weeks!!
As for lethal…no life is lethal or we are all lethal, take your pick.
As this article by leading MD/Ethicists in the US reveals, we CAN help many of these kids docs are hiding behind the label of lethality to make a quality of life judgement.
http://livingwithtrisomy13.org/Koogleretal.pdf
I have no doubt that these priests are acting out of misguided compassion. It is a tragic event to know that your child will die before it is born. Ending the child’s life is not the answer. A mother will never forget. She will be haunted by the “what ifs” for the rest of her life.
This article speaks to that regret well.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5212421.ece
Barb
I read the orignial posting on Life Site news and then the National Post article. I like Life Site, but I think they did go overboard on this, as Andrea says. What I got from the National Post article was that induction was considered for fetal anomalies that would endanger the physical, not mental, health of the mother. These are rare cases but they do happen. And the inductions are performed when it is clear the the child will die whether after the induction or after full-term birth. It is a very gray area. Some parents might say “We’ll let nature take its course” and some might say, “I don’t want to risk death. I have other responsibilities here” Like maybe other children. I have always understood that if there is a choice between the death of the mother and of the fetus, the mother’s life can be saved. There may be mothers out there who choose otherewise, but it would be difficult to argue that they should risk their lives for a child who is going to die anyway.
This is a very complex question, but I think Life Site should not be so quick to throw stones and be judgemental in this case. It actually does seem as if the hospital is trying to do the right thing and it can’t please everyone. But in the battle against abortion, people who are on the same side shouldn’t be so harsh with one another.
And for the doctors who say St. Joseph is doing abortions but just calling it by another name, that just reflects on their own moral insensitivity. An induction at viability to save the life of the mother of a child almost certainly going to die, which is treated as a human being and with dignity, is not the same thing as a procedure to suck out a fetus and throw in the garbage because the woman can’t take responsibility for her actions. I think both sides should be able to see that.
As for calling a baby an “it”, grammatically that is traditional, I suppose because the sex of the child can’t normally be discerned at first glance, unless the child is naked. When a baby is born, it is normal to say “What sex is it?” and thereafter, call it “He” or “She”
I will continue to read Life Site because I find it very informative and it is fighting the good fight, but I will practice critical reading while doing so.
Please read John Pacheco’s thoroughly thought out and excellent rebuttal of the article in the National Post. It’s here: http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=1539.
Fr. Prieur is one of the most compassionate and charismatic priest I’ve ever met, however… please read that article… (If my link doesn’t work, please go back to John’s post.
I think the discussion here shows precisely that some of us pro-lifers do not think Father Prieur is on the pro-life side. Hence the discussion.
What we are calling into question is exactly what LifeSiteNews called into question: that a team of doctors and experts at a hospital, guided by a priest who has the position of ethicist, is making decisions that many of us feel are wrong.
We actually think these guys are on the other side, not the pro-life side. But they have been cloaked by their language which sounds compassionate. Take the words away and you see the actions: early induction of labour that brings about the earlier death of a child, in order to reduce the mother’s suffering. None of their actions are taken to help the child, they are all done for the sake of the mother. This is exactly how pro-choice people argue, it is the woman who is to be considered first.
As for life-threatening pregnancies, I posted a comment above on that. They are extremely rare.
Andrea,
One of your comments in this post was, “is it true these babies never live?”
You missed the point. They are alive. They might not be born, but they ARE alive. Ask any mother carrying her unborn child whom she feels kicking and squirming if he/she is alive. Of course they are alive.
Do they live long after they are born? Indeed some do, but the medical system is so caught up in the definition of “lethal” that it is self=prophesizing. In some hospitals, the babies are fed morphine until they die. In others, they are starved to death.
I know a father who fought like you wouldn’t believe for life saving surgery for his daughter with a so-called “lethal” anomaly and today she is 7, happy and walking independently.
Andrea, you also wrote:
In my mind, though the situation we are discussing is grave indeed, and important, using the term “eugenics” to describe it is misleading. This is not a case of looking for “deformity” and then killing as a result.
Again, I believe you missed the point. This is exactly what is happening. The medical tests are looking for a deformity and killing the baby as a result. If you believe that the baby is a human being and alive before it is born, then you will see that this is clear as day.
barb
The official response from LifeSiteNews.com to the National Post is now online:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022402.html
Andrea, I thank you for your sharing this story on your site here. And for all the discussions that followed, some of which must have been difficult. You have been very open and honest to let this go on, and you are to be commended for that.
As for Catholics, I wish it were so that we could be assumed to toe the line on the pro life issue, but there is a lot of confusion amongst Catholics on this issue. Your discussion of this story has helped to clarify things for many people, including Catholics. Thank you once again.
Mary Ann stated that “What I got from the National Post article was that induction was considered for fetal anomalies that would endanger the physical, not mental, health of the mother. These are rare cases but they do happen. And the inductions are performed when it is clear the the child will die whether after the induction or after full-term birth.” Can anybody tell me of any fetal anomaly that endangers the life of the mother? I read this all the time but have yet to have anybody explain one. Also, if there is one, how often does this occur?
On another note, looks like Lifesite stands by their story:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022402.html
I went back and read Life Site’s original story, then the National Post story, and then the Life Site rebuttal. The National Post did say they were talking about situations in which the mother’s life was threatened by continuing the pregnancy. Father Prieur even said the psychological/emotional part had only once or twice in twenty years been a factor, it was the physical health of the mother. Life Site assumes that the pregnancies are terminated because of emotional considerations and doesn’t even seem to take into account that physical threat might be part of the situation. What is really going on then?
I think it is interesting that Father Prieur felt he had to stress the physical threat to the mother to justify his position. It sounds like he knows that this is the only justification and he must make what he is doing seem to fit that that criterion. So the question seems to hinge on whether these anomalies actually do constitute a direct threat the mother’s health? Never, very occasionally, what? And does the threat have to be imminent; how far ahead can you look to try to avert a crisis situation?
Not too often, from what I can glean from reading. LifeSiteNews relates two women who said they were encouraged to deliver early even though their health was not in danger. And from the latest LifeSite article, the neonatologist Dr. Paul Byrne was quoted “Every time I have been contacted over the many years that I have practiced neonatology, I instruct and encourage the mother to keep the baby in the uterus. It does not help the baby or the mother to deliver early.”
It seems that it is the psychological health of the mother that is swaying the balance here.
Unfortunately, what has been and is going on at this hospital has given great scandal to those who think this is “Catholic” policy. I am eagerly awaiting the results of the investigation that is now taking place, thanks to LifeSiteNews breaking this story.
Here are some quotes that I have taken from my reading:
“While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his 38 years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a “smoke screen”.” Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments by Randy Alcorn
“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life”. Abortion – Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow by Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood
“… less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the mother’s life.” Rites of Life by Dr. Landrum Shettles
I think that to suggest that lifesite news was going overboard is actually pretty harsh treatment for a new service that is prolife. If we as prolifers start cutting each other to the quick, without even asking first for clarification, how can we expect to gain any ground in the overall culture? Discrediting each other is definitely not the way to go, especially without thoroughly looking into the matter first. To believe the mainstream media over a prolife media source, show that you are a bit too trusting of the main line media-who seek to make prolifers look like extreme and something to be feared. It is in the best interest of the prochoice crowd at the Post to portray a legitimate prolife position as extreme. Lifesite is reporting on what is going on in a Catholic hospital that is ending the lives of preborn children prematurely. It is fair to use the term Eugenics because these children’s lives are being ended prematurely BECAUSE they are disabled. If they were ‘normal’ children what was happening would be considered abortion without a doubt, but because they are disabled and “going to die anyways” we now have to debate whether they have the right to live their lives to the fullest potential. However limited that potential may be. That Andrea is the very essence of Eugenics. I think that lifesite made it clear in both the original article and the latest one on this topic that they do not consider it to be an abortion when the procedure being done is done with the primary motivation of saving the mother’s life-even if the baby dies as a result. What is happening at St Jo’s is not occurring to save the mother’s life, despite how ‘pretty’ the Post made it all seem. What is going on there is chilling.
A mother who was pressured to have an early induction at the St. Joseph’s Hospital has come forward with her story. It confirms what LifeSiteNews wrote about the practice of eugenic abortions at this hospital. Everyone should read this. So much for the compassionate Father Prieur of the National Post article. It kind of flies in the face of this story.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022507.html
Here is one of those two cases mentioned in LSN’s response: ” Mother “Pressured” to Terminate Pregnancy of Trisomy 18 Child at Catholic Hospital —
Told Bishop of Circumstance a Month Before National Post Whitewash Story Published – dated Feb. 25, 2009.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022507.html
Based on the article and interview posted by Julie and George this evening, I think it is quite clear. Fr. Prieur and St. Joe’s hospital have done pro-life a great disservice. And I am tremendously thankful to LifeSite for exposing the issue.
By the way – the numbers don’t lie.
5-10% of babies born with Trisomy 18 survive to 1 year of age.
But 100% of Trisomy 18 babies induced at 23 weeks die virtually within minutes.
Were trying to find some details on this subject following i experienced some issues with this aswell. Your blog is beautifully written and also there’s excellent information. What is your origin of information?