I looked back to some earlier statements published over the summer, the most important one being a letter from the ACLU that claims to document more about the case. http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Letter_to_CMS_Final_PDF.pdf

The most relevant information on the case is:

"The woman was eleven weeks pregnant and suffered from life-threatening pulmonary hypertension, which is high blood pressure in the arteries that supply blood to the lungs. As her condition worsened, the hospital diagnosed her with right-sided heart failure and cardiogenic shock, and determined that she would almost certainly die unless she terminated the pregnancy."

In this situation, she would have died, the baby would of course have died as an 11 week fetus is not going to be viable and her other children (four I believe) would have lost their mother if they had acted as Bishop Ohlmsted believes should have happened.

Bishop Ohlmsted appears more interested in the "principle" of no abortion under any circumstance than any reasoned moral/ethical opinion. I have a hard time finding the moral superiority of his position. The prior Bishop of Phoenix before Ohlmsted was removed after failing to stop when he hit a drunk pedestrian and was convicted of a felony (apparently the first RC bishop in the US ever to have that dubious honor). Yet this person would place numerous lives on the line and in jeopardy if he insists on his own idiosyncratic moral interpretation. From my standpoint, I would have kept the old bishop. At least his actions resulted in only one unintentional loss of life, not placing the lives of many in jeopardy. St. Joe's is the major "tertiary care" style medical center in the city of Phoenix and central Arizona, and there is no viable alternative location for many who need high level hospital care. I think that this highlights some of the problems with allowing "private" and "religious" institutions to take over public functions. I hope that Catholic Healthcare West and St. Joe's stick to their principles in the matter.

(P.S. Why does all of this happen in Arizona? )

Sadly, Jeffrey, the bishop's stance isn't "idiosyncratic," at least in that it is exactly in line with Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition
from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. I've written about this case, and noted that there really isn't any option in the Directives if the only option is an abortion per se. Had they found grounds to do a hysterectomy, it would have been permitted even though it would have also resulted in an abortion; but call it explicitly an abortion or termination, and the Directives are clear (see specifically, and in this order, Directives 47, 45, and 48). Unfortunately, she didn't really have other grounds for a hysterectomy per se, and she was too ill to move to another hospital.

I think the Catholic Bishops are wrong on this, of course; and I'm a bit surprised these cases haven't come up more often. Nor do I think most Catholic laity would see it the way the bishop has. But unfortunately I don't think we can call it "idiosyncratic."

Marshall Scott

@ Marshall

Thanks for the clarification, and I certainly will retract "idiosyncratic." I wonder, however, how "binding" the "Directives" of the conference of Bishops would be? Is the Diocesan obliged to take action against a hospital that may have violated the directives?

I read and appreciated your quotes/review of the "moral theology." I wonder what you think about their "restriction" on the "double effect?" Why does the abortion procedure receive an explicit exception to the already-established moral principle of the "double effect?" Why is a hysterectomy an acceptable ground for doing the termination but a termination without removal of the reproductive organs for the purposes of an equally grave (if not more grave) medical need less morally acceptable? Given the RC church's position against sterilization procedures, one might even argue that making hysterectomy the needed "reason" for the termination would be even more morally objectionable as it would have the "double effect" of both causing the abortion of the fetus as well as the second less undesirable effect of interfering with natural law and causing her to be surgically incapable of "natural" pregnancy.
I am in agreement with the ACLU that there are serious legal issues at hand here as well. In particular, for an institution that provides services and receives government funding for doing so, can they really be allowed to deny accepted medical procedures for moral reasons? If so, then should they be able to receive government funds? This is the same issue, at its root, in Catholic Social Services, adoption and non-heterosexual adoption. Yet another sad elevation of "morals" over the good of the people to whom the "moral standard" is applied.

Scratch this itch, and it isn't just that an embryo/fetus is worth as much as the pregnant woman's.

The embryo/fetus life (being deemed "innocent") is worth MORE than the woman's! :-0

Popoid "Moral" Teaching comes strictly from Bizarroworld! (aka the Realm of the Father-of-Lies).

JC Fisher

Perhaps this would be a good time for the Episcopal Church in Phoenix to reach out to the sisters and offer them a safe haven in our church? I'm not being snarky either, this just might make a really powerful statement, especially in light of Rome's actions of late. We are a truly kinder and more just option that really needs to be put out there more boldly.

@Peter....As a long-time Episcopalian transplant from the RCC, I think your suggestion is quite excellent as are the reasons therein.

Jeffrey, I don't know that the bishop of obliged to take action. I think, though, that the bishop understands the obligation to go a different way. Just as in academics, a theologian or an institution has to adhere to certain standards of teaching (both quality and content) to be identified as "Catholic." Health care institutions that identify as "Catholic" are expected to meet certain standards, including observing the "Ethical and Religious Directives."

As I said, I'm really more surprised that we haven't heard of this more often. human nature being what it is, I can't imagine that all institutions are rigorous, with this as one of the few exceptions. My guess is that if such rare and tragic events happen, they don't come to the attention of bishops. Perhaps, too, patients are moved to other institutions despite the risk. Perhaps on such rare occasions other bishops have been less rigorous. Probably, all of these things have happened.

It's worth noting, too, that most Catholic health care institutions aren't owned by dioceses, but by religious orders (now sometimes functioning within larger systems). That's the case in Phoenix: St. Joseph Hospital is owned by an order of sisters. Many of us are aware that, while orders are supposed to cooperate with the bishops within whose dioceses they operate, the relationships aren't always smooth. So, the bishop can't close the hospital, but may well be able to press for it to be "decertified."

JC, one of my primary difficulties with the Roman Church is the decision to attribute full personhood to a fetus. That doesn't per se make the fetus more important than the mother. However, the fetus is more vulnerable, unable to choose or act on its own behalf. So, the Church has taken the part of "the underdog," as it were. Of course, that's only an issue if there are really two persons whose needs are equally valid, but whose power is not equal. If the fetus is not a person, the only moral agent, and the only set of rights to be protected, is the mother.

Marshall Scott

Q.E.D., Marshall.

JC Fisher