In OB/GYN 101, I wrote:
Do not induce labor for inevitable abortion, i.e. when fetal death has not occurredIt is true that uncomplicated inevitable abortion should be managed expectantly, especially if there is a question in diagnosis. However, there are situations in which labor can be induced because of the principle of double effect.
If a woman develops chorioamnionitis prior to viability (either spontaneously or because of previable PPROM), the principle of double effect permits induction of labor if chorioamnionitis is clearly present and either is too severe or too remote from delivery for antibiotics to preserve the lives of mother and fetus. Richard White explains:
The early induction of labor...satisfies the four conditions of double effect. First, it can be assumed that the intention of both mother and physician is to evacuate the infected chorion and amnion. Second, in light of the serious infection and its threat to the lives of both mother and fetus, treatment is needed to save the life of the mother; that the mother’s life can only be saved by inducing labor is a proportionate reason to perform the procedure. Third, since the early induction of labor does not target the fetus, but the evacuation of the pathological tissues, the death of the fetus is not a means to achieve the health of the mother. And, fourth, there is no alternate procedure to treat the chorioamnionitis with the promptness required by the situation. (1)Persistent Eclampsia (or Complicated Pre-eclampsia)
The act of inducing labor, in this case, appears to satisfy all the conditions of the principle of double effect. First, the act removes the offending placenta, which is the cause of eclampsia. This action is therapeutic for the mother and is, thus, good. Second, the intention of the physician and the mother are, presumably, directed towards the treatment of eclampsia, not towards the termination of the pregnancy. Third, cure of the condition is not achieved by removing the fetus, but by removing the offending placenta. Fourth, the mother’s life is endangered by the complications of eclampsia, which have manifested; the various threats to the mother’s life that the complications pose are proportionate to the induction’s consequences for the child. Fifth, all other methods of treatment that would not result in the death of the fetus (i.e., expectant management) have been exhausted. (1)
Do not advise the use of any hormonal contraceptive (e.g. mirena) in sexually active patients. Period. This is because of their post-fertilization effects.It is true that patients should not use hormonal contraceptives because when used throughout the cycle, they will inevitable have post-fertilization effects. But when you, a physician, are in control of when those hormonal contraceptives are used, you can use them licitly to avoid the post-fertilization effects.
Emergency contracpetion (EC) has its own post. But here's quick a rundown:
- Hormonal pills: can be licit. Remember that hormones to prevent pregnancy are not proscribed except to the married, and self-defense is licit, even defending oneself against the effects of an act, such as advancing sperm. A pregnancy test is not enough to exclude the potential post-fertilization effects of emergency contraceptives. The Peoria Protocol lays out how to tell with moral certainty that a woman has not ovulated and that the primary effect of EC is anti-ovulatory. It involves serum progesterone (<1.5 is pre-ovulatory, okay to give EC) and urine LH (negative is pre-ovulatory, okay to give EC). Notice I didn't give units. Do not use cutoffs a blog post to determine management of patients requesting EC. You need a working relationship with your hospital lab and you need to be better acquainted with the Protocol's other reference ranges for progesterone before you can use it.
- Hormonal IUDs: insertion of a mirena or skyla as EC relies not only on the anti-ovulatory effects of the levonorgestrel, but also on the intrauterine effects, which act after fertilization. Although it may be argued that application of the Peoria Protocol could allow these effects to be avoided, a systemic hormone (to reach the hypothalamus) is more targeted than an IUD (which would also have to be removed if the patient is later sexually active.
- Paragard: this relies on post-fertilization effects (which is why it works up to five days after the act of intercourse), and cannot be licitly used.
- Plan B: is levonorgestrel, given in one 1.5mg dose or two 0.75mg doses twelve hours apart. Strangely, we can't seem to figure out whether its main effect is primarily anti-ovulatory or post-fertilization. A recent (2015) review of all the data in the Linacre (2) concluded that "arguments used to justify use of [Plan B] as a non-abortifacient drug carry substantial weaknesses; in addition, the preovulatory administration of LNG-EC does not consistently alter sperm or ova flow and function, yet there is absence of clinical pregnancy in cases where fertilization is likely, which suggests that abortion is a likely mechanism of action. Therefore, the claim that moral certitude exists via LNG-EC’s nonabortifacient action is currently indefensible."
- Ella: ulipristal is a selective progesterone receptor modulator. It is given in one 30 mg dose. It antagonizes progesterone at its receptors on the endometrium, which mean it only has post-fertilization effects. This is the same mechanism of action as mifepristone (RU486, which is given in doses of 600mg for elective abortions). Although package inserts deny that it is abortifacient, this indicates that a 30mg dose is not suspected to have post-implantation effects. For a Catholic who understands life to begin at sperm-egg fusion, ulipristal is extremely likely to lead to loss of embryonic life.
All the above is generally agreed upon. Going forward, I am about to make some people disagree with me. This is because the magisterium has not spoken on this issue and faithful Catholic theologians (who all agree that life should be protected from fertilization to natural end) can legitimately disagree. This disagreement is good and fruitful.
In short: salpingectomy is fine, principle of double effect applies.
Salpingostomy: also fine, principle of double effect applies. (Alert! Not everyone agrees with me, but some of the theologians who thought this was not licit have come to agree. An excellent article by Christopher Kaczor in the Linacre defended this very soundly (3). I am morally certain that this is permissible.)
Methotrexate: has its own post. The same excellent article in the Linacre did not defend this very soundly at all, but I propose a different defense, which takes into account more embryology, more sonography, and more other examples from medicine than I have seen others do.
Like all sinners who want to be faithful Catholics, I submit every word of this post to the judgement of the Church.
References not linked:
- Richard White. "Prenatal Complications." The Linacre Quarterly 2009; 76(3), 304-309. DOI: 10.1179/002436309803889098
- Chris Kahlenborn, Rebecca Peck and Walter B. Severs. "Mechanism of action of levonorgestrel emergency contraception." The Linacre Quarterly 2015; 82(1), 18-33. DOI: 10.1179/2050854914Y.0000000026
- Christopher Kaczor. "The Ethics of Ectopic Pregnancy: A Critical Reconsideration of Salpingostomy and Methotrexate." The Linacre Quarterly 2009; 76(3), 265-282. DOI: 10.1179/002436309803889106