OT: methotrexate and ectopy

[Guest guest]

mtx is direct abortion because its direct intent is to deprive the baby

of something it essentially needs for life, correct? It is a direct

attack on the baby. One site gives this description: " The treatment

works by interfering with an essential vitamin (folate) which is needed

for the rapidly growing tissue of ectopic pregnancy. " Is that a correct

mode of action and a correct understanding of why mtx is direct abortion?

Are there any treatments short of tubal tissue removal that would also

meet the double effect scenarion, even theoretical treatments?

kj

E. wrote:

snip

>

>

> The mention of MTX is interesting – just yesterday Medscape daily news

> included this:

>

> “Single-Dose Methotrexate as Effective as Multiple Doses for Ectopic

> Pregnancy”

>

> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/504745

>

>

>

> Of course, no matter how efficiently MTX can work – it’s still a direct

> abortion.

>

>

snip

[Guest guest]

a - Yes, I think that's right. But - when did I write " snip " ? I

try not to be snippy (maybe I don't succeed).

I suspect that - when there's a living embryo - only tubal tissue

removal would meet double-effect criteria. (I would definitely agree

with those who say - as Davenport mentions - that if/when there's

certainty the embryo has already died, then there's no moral problem -

e.g. with MTX.)

An interesting question would be - if you can remove a living embryo

(but no tubal tissue) without directly damaging it (i.e. it would die

not because of direct damage from surgical instruments - but from lack

of proper environment after removal) - would that meet double-effect

criteria? This is where Catholic moralists seem to disagree - I tend to

think that it does not meet the criteria - just as induction before

viability is generally considered morally the same as a direct abortion.

KM

PS - Speaking of these pro-life issues - NRLC President Wanda Franz was

one of our honorary degree recipients and commencement speakers this

morning. Who is your local Catholic university honoring this month?

> OT: methotrexate and ectopy

>

> mtx is direct abortion because its direct intent is to deprive the

baby

> of something it essentially needs for life, correct? It is a direct

> attack on the baby. One site gives this description: " The treatment

> works by interfering with an essential vitamin (folate) which is

needed

> for the rapidly growing tissue of ectopic pregnancy. " Is that a

correct

> mode of action and a correct understanding of why mtx is direct

abortion?

> Are there any treatments short of tubal tissue removal that would also

> meet the double effect scenarion, even theoretical treatments?

> kj

>

> E. wrote:

> snip

> >

> >

> > The mention of MTX is interesting - just yesterday Medscape daily

news

> > included this:

> >

> > " Single-Dose Methotrexate as Effective as Multiple Doses for Ectopic

> > Pregnancy "

> >

> > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/504745

> >

> >

> >

> > Of course, no matter how efficiently MTX can work - it's still a

direct

> > abortion.

> >

> >

> snip