(Prolifer)ations 7-13-10

Thumbnail image for blog buzz.jpg

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN

  • Catherine Palmer at Ethika Politika discusses the coming new role for doctors as "physician-euthanizer" and "healer-destroyer" and points out the dichotomy...
  • The physician's aim is to heal; our focus should remain on this aim, not his potential power over life and death.

    It is not only unjust, but also illogical, to eliminate suffering by eliminating the sufferer.

  • Americans United for Life expresses concerns about a new, inexpensive blood test due out in 4 years that can detect Down Syndrome and other congenital health problems in the preborn baby through a simple blood draw from the mother.

  • Thomas Peters writes in American Papist of the continuing push by the Obama administration to force hospitals into providing abortions and contraception or be forced out of health care. He encourages people to sign the Protect Life Amendment petition so Catholic hospitals can practice medicine without violating their beliefs.

  • Disability Matters discusses the recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick, who is an " unabashed fan of health care rationing."

  • Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute conducted a recent summer camp for high school and college students in IN. He shares his notes on Advanced Pro-Life Apologetics. A must-read for pro-lifers.

  • Stand for Life calls the National Defense Authorization Act for 2011 to allow abortions in military hospitals the "biggest political war over abortion since the passage of the health care overhaul."

  • Judie Brown of American Life League discusses the growing concern of the potential takeover of a Catholic hospital in Boston and how the alleged agreement under consideration would allow the hospital to operate under Catholic principles unless they are deemed "unlawful or materially burdensome." She asks, "why the charade to mislead the public that Caritas will remain Catholic?"


  • Comments:

    Susie, may I suggest a wording change on item #2? The phrase "other defects in the preborn baby" implies that people with Down Syndrome and so on are "defectives." I am SURE that's not what you meant, but as pro-lifers, we have to be extraordinarily careful with our language. I would recommend "other congenital health problems in the preborn baby." It's both more humanizing and more precise.

    Posted by: Kelsey at July 13, 2010 5:16 PM


    Thank You, Kelsey. :)

    Posted by: Pamela at July 13, 2010 5:41 PM


    Great point! Thanks

    Posted by: Susie at July 13, 2010 6:05 PM


    88 JAILED, for refusing to partake in Adoration of "THE ONE" at what was once a Catholic University - http://www.FreeTheND88.org

    Posted by: Obamanation @ Notre Dame at July 13, 2010 6:44 PM


    I would welcome thoughts such as these. However, I feel a wee bit ostracized by a politically correct phraseology. I have a rare genetic condition called Friedreich's Ataxia. It mimes very closely the symptoms of the worst case of MS. But since it is genetic, at times it is more accurate to say I am FA rather than I have FA.

    These seemingly 'strange' words: point out the fact that there is no part of me that does not have FA. How can I accept my FA, even if it is life threatening/shortening?

    Posted by: John McDonell at July 13, 2010 7:04 PM


    You're welcome :)
    John, I don't normally consider myself the politically correct type. As far as terminology for FA and like conditions go, I'll defer to you and to others who know what they're talking about.

    Posted by: Kelsey at July 13, 2010 10:23 PM


    Hey Jill,
    My doctor has been pushing the methotrexate shot because he suspects an ectopic pregnancy. In my mind this is the same as an abortion. What do you think?

    Posted by: Donna at July 13, 2010 11:42 PM


    The current screening for DS has a HUGE false positive rate. What are the false positives/negatives on this new test?

    And I am concerned that this will only raise the percentage of babies with DS who are aborted... reducing the chances that people will be blessed to know an individual with DS... increasing the fear that families feel when they find out their child may have DS.... such a tragic, vicious cycle!

    Posted by: Elisabeth at July 14, 2010 1:21 AM


    Donna, I know you asked Jill, but I'd like to answer. Ectopic pregnancy can threaten the mother's life. And with current medical technology, we still have no way for a baby to survive an ectopic pregnancy. Although the treatment for an ectopic pregnancy does result in the baby dying a few days or weeks earlier than he or she otherwise would have, it is NOT an abortion! I think this Youth Defence campaign puts it best: http://www.youthdefence.ie/am_cms_media/set-the-record-straight-newspaper-advert.pdf

    However, since you said that your doctor only "suspects" an ectopic pregnancy, if I were you I would insist on further testing. My thoughts are with you in this difficult time. I lost a sibling in an ectopic pregnancy when I was little. My mom tells me that as soon as she became pregnant, she knew in her gut that something was wrong. Sometimes you just KNOW.

    Posted by: Kelsey at July 14, 2010 7:59 AM


    Donna, I am sorry you are dealing with this. Definitely get a positive diagnosis before you take further steps, though! If the doctor is suspecting ectopic only because he cannot see a baby in the uterus, for instance, it could be earlier than you think in the pregnancy. I would find a pro-life doctor to treat you if at all possible.

    Try to find a doctor who is willing to treat both you and your baby. While there are currently no treatments available to save the lives of babies in ectopic pregnancies, part of the reason this is true is because the attitude of doctors is to abort the moment an ectopic pregnancy is suspected, or at best, to wait and see if the baby dies.

    If the ectopic pregnancy is confirmed (I hope you don't have an ectopic pregnancy--I hope your baby is well but it is just early; that's the best case scenario) and you have a doctor you trust, ask him or her why it is not possible to remove the embryo and place him or her in the uterus, where he or she might have a chance to reattach (embryos have occasionally reattached after tubal rupture to another organ or the abdominal wall, so reattachment is possible, and if the embryo were to reattach in the uterus, he or she would have the best chance) or to preemptively open the tube (preventing a catastrophic rupture, the reason that ectopic pregnancy is sometimes fatal) and place it against the uterus so that the placenta can grow into the uterine blood supply (ectopic pregnancies which implant on the outside of the uterus have the best success rate, as the uterus is designed to support a placenta and has mechanisms to prevent blood loss from becoming catastrophic). This is if the embryo has implanted in the fallopian tube, which is the most common case in ectopic pregnancies; results vary wildly if the embryo has implanted elsewhere. I do not believe these methods are employed at all, but I believe they may offer hope. But no statistics are available on these courses of treatment. They are probably not safer to the mother than the injection of a chemical like methotrexate that would cause the baby to stop growing.

    Ectopic pregnancy carries a high risk of death if untreated. If the fallopian tube ruptures, the embryo will almost certainly die, and the mother will experience catastrophic blood loss. Often rupture is the first sign that a woman has of an ectopic pregnancy; I have had trouble finding the source of her numbers but one site reported the risk of death from rupture as being less than one percent (http://inashoe.com/2008/06/ectopic-pregnancy-and-the-sanctity-of-life/). She lists her sources but I could not find the source for her numbers; perhaps this pay article? http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/1997/07000/A_Study_of_Ruptured_Tubal_Ectopic_Pregnancy.10.aspx

    In her second post on the topic she says: "according to the CDC, from 1991-1999, an average of 26 people died each year from ectopic pregnancies, from among the 20-40,000 that ruptured each year." (http://inashoe.com/2008/06/ectopic-pregnancy-clarifications/) I could not find the information in the article she cited (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5202a1.htm) probably because the tables seem to be broken.

    Regardless, it seems that even when rupture occurs death is not inevitable, but actually unlikely, especially with prompt medical attention. Do seek medical care, but try to find a practitioner who will care for both you and your baby. Conservative medical treatment--that is, removing the tube and/or the baby in the tube, and/or using methotrexate to stop his or her growth--likely does carry the best chance of survival.

    God bless you. I pray you are not experiencing ectopic pregnancy. Praying for you. Please keep us updated.

    Posted by: ycw at July 17, 2010 6:02 AM



    Post a comment:




    Remember Me?

    (you may use HTML tags for style)

    Please enter the letter "u" in the field below: