This is my first post. I have been lurking for quite some time and I thank you all very much for the vast amount of information that is here.
This is where I learned that I want very much to be an OR nurse. I have shadowed, observed and considered the environment and I am hooked. So I am awaiting the results of an interview, but in my interview a subject that I never thought of came up. I should have thought of it, but I didn't.
This is a large community hospital. Apparently botched abortions can end up in the OR and of course it will require a scrub/ circulator. They are very clear that if I consent to work there, it will happen and I would have to perform the required role.
I don't want to offend or debate this, but I do need to know one thing.
Is the baby already dead or still alive during these incidents? I can be a woman's nurse if the deed is already done, but I can't participate.
My future is riding on this. I would be grateful for any information anyone would provide.
sorry--a little canon law debate that doesn't really fit here!
original itent only that the most pro-life organization on the planet doesn't insist mom die to save baby..an enourmously rare set of circumstances.
kiwi--it was terminate, or the mom, the mother of three young children, would die from cardiac tamponade and untreatable (then, at least) pulmonary htn it's obscure, but in the long version of the canon. it was choice between one death or two deaths. i am personally as pro-life in any form as anyone i know.
actually, this does belong here in the sense that we should be aware of what we may have to deal with at work and should think through all of the ramification in deciding where to work.
i come at this from a different set of beliefs than some but have personally decided that i will not take contracts in hospitals associated with religions which do not allow terminations (there are several). i came to this after being on a contract at a catholic facility and experiencing the situation of a woman actively bleeding out, blood running off the bed and onto the floor, blood being administered as quickly as possible but the patient going in and out of conciousness. patient, her husband and the doctor all agreed that termination immediately was the only option, but the physician was unable to proceed because none of the other physicians on staff were willing to sign agreeing the procedure had to be done. ethics committee called to come in, meanwhile blood is still running into and out of this poor woman and the us tech asking the doctor - do you want me to continue to monitor here? maybe this heart rate will cease before the mother's does and you can try to save her.
on the third round of calls to physicians, ethic comm. involved one physician finally did agree to sign.
i really :heartbeatappreciate your pointing the other side of the issue, also, and it is a quagmire from almost any direction you look.
may i also add that i see your side, and if ever i could support a termination it would be in cases like this. i have to answer to my conscience, and you to yours. speaking for myself alone, there would be very little abortion backlash if they were performed for only serious medical reasons. the "abortion as contraception" viewpoint is abhorent to most people i know, even those who i love who are pro-choice.
thank you again for being so clear and non-confrontational on this hot button issue, which touches at the core of the value of human life and the best way to support that ideal. a respectful salute from the other side of the fence...:bdyhdclp:
This is never an easy topic to discuss, which I think makes it all the more important that people think through it and decide for themselves what they will do before being confronted with the situation. I really appreciate those here who are able to say "This is what I believe and why" without feeling they must convert others to their view.
Abortion is not a simple matter - nor should it ever be.
Remember that in the early weeks a baby that has a heart rate still may have zero chance of surviving because of their own abnormalities, or because of a procedure that was started offsite that was not finished. If the OP is completeing abortions that were already in progress the fetus had little chance of survival once the procedure started. That's what I understood the OP to be asking about.
kiwi--it was terminate, or the mom, the mother of three young children, would die from cardiac tamponade and untreatable (then, at least) pulmonary htn it's obscure, but in the long version of the canon. it was choice between one death or two deaths.
i'm not sure which principle you are referring to. if you mean the principle of double effect, it does not apply, since the actions dealt with under this principle are either morally good or morally neutral actions only, and -- as the catechism affirms -- direct abortion is neither morally good nor neutral but "morally evil". having in his encyclical "evangelium vitae" declared as doctrine that "direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being", pope john paul ii continues:
no circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit...
the circumstance of "grave peril" to the mother's "health and even life" is discussed in pius xi's encyclical letter "casti connubii" but he states that this could never be "a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent" (paragraph 64).
both documents acknowledge the tragedy of such a situation and the pain suffered by those intimately involved and those looking on, but pius xi warns against allowing ones feelings -- no matter how strong they are or how noble the motives may seem -- to cloud the distinction between right and wrong. a very pertinent thought for all of us as nurses.
Oops, can't edit anymore. I just wanted to say that I'm not meaning to draw the discussion out. I merely wish to clarify the Catholic position so that others know what Catholics hold to and why. This can be continued by PM if anyone wishes to.
i'd be happy to iscuss this..the quote is a little out of cotext, and i'd like to emphasize the difference between "murder" and saving mom and baby both form certain physical death. in no way i am supporting abortion...just pointing out that once in a very blue moon the church will allow the death of a baby in lieu of the death of baby and mom..
i'd be happy to iscuss this..the quote is a little out of cotext, and i'd like to emphasize the difference between "murder" and saving mom and baby both form certain physical death. in no way i am supporting abortion...just pointing out that once in a very blue moon the church will allow the death of a baby in lieu of the death of baby and mom..
this happened not too long ago in my hospital, or something sort of similar anyway. we had an antepartum pt who at 22 weeks was already severely preeclamptic. we kept her and magged her and watched her and tried to buy her as much time as we could. it didn't really work, and as preeclamptic mamas can do, she went into severe hellp on a dime and we had to take the baby or they would have both died. nobody liked that situation. there were a few nurses that refused to take her when the decision was made to take the baby because in their eyes it was killing the baby. the way i saw it, if we hadn't delivered the baby, we'd have two dead people instead of one, and what good would that have done? it's hard to decide in a situation like that, because mom's life is precious too.
bagladyrn, RN
2,286 Posts
actually, this does belong here in the sense that we should be aware of what we may have to deal with at work and should think through all of the ramification in deciding where to work.
i come at this from a different set of beliefs than some but have personally decided that i will not take contracts in hospitals associated with religions which do not allow terminations (there are several). i came to this after being on a contract at a catholic facility and experiencing the situation of a woman actively bleeding out, blood running off the bed and onto the floor, blood being administered as quickly as possible but the patient going in and out of conciousness. patient, her husband and the doctor all agreed that termination immediately was the only option, but the physician was unable to proceed because none of the other physicians on staff were willing to sign agreeing the procedure had to be done. ethics committee called to come in, meanwhile blood is still running into and out of this poor woman and the us tech asking the doctor - do you want me to continue to monitor here? maybe this heart rate will cease before the mother's does and you can try to save her.
on the third round of calls to physicians, ethic comm. involved one physician finally did agree to sign.