Bells
Staff member
Sister Margaret McBride was a nun and she was also an administrator at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix Arizona. Her role also involved serving on the Ethics Board of the hospital, along with doctors and other personnel.
In 2008, a young woman, a mother of 4, and 11 weeks pregnant, presented at the Catholic Hospital adminstered by Sister McBride, suffering from the life threatening condition of pulmonary hypertension. It would seem that her heart and lungs could not cope with the pregnancy and she was at risk of dying if the pregnancy were allowed to continue. After consulting with the doctors and the devastated family, Sister McBride gave permission for the procedure, which ultimately saved the young mother's life.
Now, one would think that this was a fairly straight forward decision. Sister McBride consulted the medical staff involved in her case, the mother and her family and the Ethics Board, who all agreed that her only chance at survival was to have the abortion. In short, Sister McBride made the only logical decision based on the medical evidence and the wishes of the mother, her family and the doctors involved.
Unfortunately, this was not the case. The local Bishop vehemently disagreed with her decision and citing his reasons based on the teachings of the Church in a Q & A statement released by the Diocese in charge of Phoenix and who dealt with the situation, promptly ex-communicated Sister McBride and all other Catholics involved in the case who approved or recommended the abortion in the treatment of the mother.
This decision has highlighted further frightening events taking place in Catholic Hospitals. It appears that the directive from 'above' is that a uterine aspiration can only take place once there is no fetal heartbeat, even in the event of risk of death or injury to the mother if the pregnancy were to continue. In other words, if the mother falls ill during the pregnancy and her only chance at survival is to terminate the pregnancy, Catholic Hospitals may not do anything for the mother, whether she is Catholic or not.
Even more troublesome is that there have been some reports made of some Catholic Hospitals refusing to treat women who are in the process of miscarrying early on in the pregnancy, because the fetus still has a heartbeat. In other words, the woman's cervix has dialated and her membranes have ruptured, sometimes with terrifying results, but because the fetus may still have a hearbeat, doctors working in Catholic Hospitals cannot proceed with the normal treatment, which would involve a uterine aspiration.
Aside from feeling horror at the thought of having to drive for 90 miles with the hand of my 14 week old fetus sticking out of my cervix in an obvious miscarriage, due to the hospital's refusal to take the case based on religious grounds, one has to ask how such a thing can be occuring in any country, let alone in the US?
As Angela Bonavoglia asks in her report:
The hospital wrote a letter to Bishop Olmsted:
However, based on Q & A statement from the Diocese of Phoenix, I don't know whether they will like the answer. The more important question should be whether the Church should impose itself on standard medical practice to such an extent, especially when it is to the detriment of patients? What should have priority? The Church's religious teachings or medical necessity in life and death situations?
As the cases that have been reported have shown, there is a dire need for more Sister McBride's in Catholic hospitals. As Angela Bonavoglia comments, because there aren't more like her, women in particular, and their families, need to make sure she's taken to the right hospital. And her life could very well depend on it and she is pregnant and needs an abortion to save her life:
In 2008, a young woman, a mother of 4, and 11 weeks pregnant, presented at the Catholic Hospital adminstered by Sister McBride, suffering from the life threatening condition of pulmonary hypertension. It would seem that her heart and lungs could not cope with the pregnancy and she was at risk of dying if the pregnancy were allowed to continue. After consulting with the doctors and the devastated family, Sister McBride gave permission for the procedure, which ultimately saved the young mother's life.
Now, one would think that this was a fairly straight forward decision. Sister McBride consulted the medical staff involved in her case, the mother and her family and the Ethics Board, who all agreed that her only chance at survival was to have the abortion. In short, Sister McBride made the only logical decision based on the medical evidence and the wishes of the mother, her family and the doctors involved.
Unfortunately, this was not the case. The local Bishop vehemently disagreed with her decision and citing his reasons based on the teachings of the Church in a Q & A statement released by the Diocese in charge of Phoenix and who dealt with the situation, promptly ex-communicated Sister McBride and all other Catholics involved in the case who approved or recommended the abortion in the treatment of the mother.
This decision has highlighted further frightening events taking place in Catholic Hospitals. It appears that the directive from 'above' is that a uterine aspiration can only take place once there is no fetal heartbeat, even in the event of risk of death or injury to the mother if the pregnancy were to continue. In other words, if the mother falls ill during the pregnancy and her only chance at survival is to terminate the pregnancy, Catholic Hospitals may not do anything for the mother, whether she is Catholic or not.
Even more troublesome is that there have been some reports made of some Catholic Hospitals refusing to treat women who are in the process of miscarrying early on in the pregnancy, because the fetus still has a heartbeat. In other words, the woman's cervix has dialated and her membranes have ruptured, sometimes with terrifying results, but because the fetus may still have a hearbeat, doctors working in Catholic Hospitals cannot proceed with the normal treatment, which would involve a uterine aspiration.
Aside from feeling horror at the thought of having to drive for 90 miles with the hand of my 14 week old fetus sticking out of my cervix in an obvious miscarriage, due to the hospital's refusal to take the case based on religious grounds, one has to ask how such a thing can be occuring in any country, let alone in the US?
As Angela Bonavoglia asks in her report:
The hospital wrote a letter to Bishop Olmsted:
However, based on Q & A statement from the Diocese of Phoenix, I don't know whether they will like the answer. The more important question should be whether the Church should impose itself on standard medical practice to such an extent, especially when it is to the detriment of patients? What should have priority? The Church's religious teachings or medical necessity in life and death situations?
As the cases that have been reported have shown, there is a dire need for more Sister McBride's in Catholic hospitals. As Angela Bonavoglia comments, because there aren't more like her, women in particular, and their families, need to make sure she's taken to the right hospital. And her life could very well depend on it and she is pregnant and needs an abortion to save her life:
Last edited:
