Part 5

A group of gynaecologists maintain that when fibromata cause dangerous symptoms in pregnancy the uterus should be taken out in part or wholly if the tumour is so deeply involved in the uterine wall that it can not be separated. This operation, of course, kills the foetus. At times the child is viable, and a precedent caesarean section will save it. Surgeons do not remove fibromata merely as a precaution, as they sometimes do in the case of ovarian cysts. Other surgeons say it is safe to wait. If the channel of delivery is blocked, these men wait till term and then do caesarean {42} section; in other cases the tumour will often be lifted up out of the way during the later stages of gestation or labour.

In those very rare cases where it is necessary to remove the uterus wholly or in part before the child is viable, and thereby also to kill the foetus, the operation at first glance seems in no wise to differ in nature from a craniotomy upon a living child. The condition, however, is commonly worse than one in which a craniotomy is indicated, because in the latter condition we have a viable child, and the caesarean section to solve the difficulty, but in the former we have a child not viable, and therefore the caesarean section would be useless, except for the opportunity it might give for baptism of the child. In such a case must the surgeon let the mother die lest he hasten the death of a non-viable child?

The action reduces to this, that the surgeon by operating would permit a hastening of the inevitable death of the foetus while saving the mother's life, but the child is not an unjust aggressor, not even a materially unjust aggressor. It has a right to be where it is. The only excuse for hastening its death is to save the mother's life,--there is no question of self-defence; but deliberately to hasten the death of a human being a second of time, except it be done by an individual in self-defence against an unjust aggressor, or by the state for legitimate cause, is murder. It seems probable, however, that there is something to be said in favour of the unavoidable hysterectomy (removal of the womb) in a pregnancy complicated with uterine fibromata that undoubtedly endanger life.

Such cases differ from craniotomy, or the direct killing of a foetus (which were formally forbidden by the Holy Office on May 28, 1884, and August 19, 1888, and always forbidden by the natural law) in several factors: first, in craniotomy the child is _directly_ killed, although it is not an aggressor, in the hysterectomy it is permitted to die, it is _indirectly_ killed; secondly, in craniotomy there is a viable child, in the hysterectomy, an unviable child; thirdly, in craniotomy there is a killing that is a means toward the end of saving the mother's life, in the hysterectomy there is a permitted hastening of the foetus's death, and this is only a circumstance inseparably joined to the act; fourthly, in craniotomy the killing is utterly {43} uncalled for, because the caesarean section, or symphyseotomy (a temporary dividing of the pubic joint to get more room) will do instead, in the hysterectomy, because the child is not viable, there is no alternate way out of the difficulty; fifthly, formal judgment has been pronounced by the Holy Office in craniotomy, no formal judgment has been made as regards this hysterectomy.

Suppose A and B are on a boat hoisting a weighty object to a ship; the tackle breaks, the falling weight mortally hurts B, and wedges him fast to the wrecked boat. The boat is about to sink and drown both men, but if A tips off the weight, and with it unavoidably the entangled B, A can float to safety. A will indirectly hasten the inevitable death of B by throwing off the weight which will drag him down. May A do so? Very probably he may.

Two swimmers, A and B, are trying to save C, who dies in the water, and as he dies he grips A and B so tightly they can not shake the corpse off. A is weak, and he will soon sink and drown owing to the weight of the corpse; B also will later go down with A and C. A, however, cuts his clothing loose from the grip of the corpse (or some one in a boat does so who can do no more) and A is saved; but thus immediately B is drowned, owing to the fact that the full weight of the corpse is upon him. Is A, or the man in the boat, justified? Probably they are. A is the mother, B the foetus, C the diseased uterus, the man in the boat is the surgeon. The mother has herself cut away from the uterus and the foetus's death is hastened.

Again, take an example used by Father Ricaby in his _Moral Philosophy_, p. 205 (London, 1901). He supposes a visitor to a quarry to be standing on a ledge of rock which a quarryman had occasion to blast, and the quarry man saw that "unless that piece of rock where the visitor stood were blown up instantly, a catastrophe would happen elsewhere, which would be the death of many men, and if there were no time to warn the visitor to clear off who could blame him if he applied the explosive? The means of averting the catastrophe would be, not that visitor's death, but the blowing up of the rock. The presence or absence of the visitor, his death {44} or escape, is all one to the end intended: it has no bearing thereon at all."

If these examples of indirect killing are allowable, why may not the surgeon in the rare example presented here remove the uterus and indirectly permit the hastening of the foetus's death? That hastening of death is not an end, nor a means toward an end, but a circumstance only reluctantly and indirectly willed. The end is to save the mother's life, and the means is the removal of a septic or impacted uterus.

It may be objected that an artificial abortion wherein the womb is emptied of an unviable foetus to save the mother's life is only an indirect hastening of this foetus's death, but there is a difference: in abortion the removal of the foetus is the means whereby the end is attained, in the hysterectomy the removal of the _tumour_ is the means whereby the end is attained. This argument is advanced only tentatively and with diffidence, that the matter may be discussed and settled by authority.

Sometimes carcinoma (a cancer) complicates pregnancy--once in 2000 cases is above the average. A carcinoma is a malignant tumour, and the malignancy is made much worse by the stimulus of pregnancy with its increased blood supply. The maternal deaths from carcinoma of the uterus during pregnancy is, according to the latest and most favourable statistics, 30 per centum. The mortality of the children is from 50 to 63 per centum.

Now, first, if an artificial abortion is induced while the foetus is unviable, the foetus is lost and the mother's condition is not materially improved.

Secondly, if curettement (a scraping away with a sharp spoonlike instrument), cauterization, or amputation of the uterine cervix are performed, the mother is helped very little, if at all, and consequent abortion is frequent.

Thirdly, if caesarean section is done at term the child has a good chance (Sanger saved 16 of 18 children thus in one series: over 88 per centum), but this operation nearly always kills the mother when cancer is present, unless the entire uterus can be removed, and often it can not be removed; that {45} is, the case is inoperable and removal is useless owing to extension of the cancer into the surrounding tissues.

Fourthly, if the mother's condition is hopeless, a caesarean section gives the child a chance for life, but the operation will hasten the mother's death in nearly every case.

The first and second cases here are not practical. If the surgeon can remove the uterus at term after a caesarean section, that is the most reasonable operation for the mother and child, and it offers no moral difficulty.

If the mother's condition is so bad that the uterus may not be removed, the chances are that her death will be hastened by caesarean section, but if caesarean section is not done, from 50 to 63 per centum is the ratio against the saving of the child. I do not think a general rule can be given as regards the certainty of hastening the maternal death: the reckoning is to be made to meet the particular condition. It seems, however, probable that in every case of inoperable carcinoma of the uterus complicating pregnancy a caesarean section would hasten the maternal death. She will die anyhow from the cancer, but in certain cases she may live longer if the section is not done.

If, again, a carcinoma of the uterus is inoperable at term, the delivery of the child may be impossible without caesarean section, from uterine inertia, or the opposition of the dense inflamed tissues, or the friability of these tissues. In such a case without the section she would die, and die probably sooner than with it. The operation would possibly slightly prolong her life, by, say, a few hours or days, and it certainly would give the child a very good chance for its life. She may, of course, die upon the operating table, but she would die in childbed without the section.

The case is different from the ordinary caesarean section done because of a narrow pelvic bony girdle. In the latter condition the chances that the mother will live are very high if the surgeon is competent, but in the carcinoma case she will die no matter who the surgeon may be, and very probably, or almost certainly, her death will be hastened by the operation in the majority of cases.

If the condition is such that the woman can not be delivered {46} without the section, I see no difficulty against operation, because the surgeon can not, as far as I know, say positively whether he will hasten the maternal death or not, and in the circumstances he may take advantage of the doubt.

If the woman with an inoperable carcinoma uteri may be delivered _without_ section, should such a delivery be chosen although it raises the chances of mortality as regards the child from about 12 per centum to at the least 50 per centum? It is a matter of a very probable hastening of the mother's death as weighed against the safety of the child--the child has about one chance in two of life without the section, and, say, seven chances in eight with the section. The operation is far preferable as regards the child alone, but not preferable as regards the mother alone. Is it then allowable?

In the hysterectomy for fibroma already considered, the mother is saved and the child's inevitable death is certainly hastened; in the caesarean section the child is most probably saved, and the mother's inevitable death is most probably hastened; we might say, in some cases, that her death is undoubtedly hastened. If in the carcinoma case here the child had no chance whatever for delivery except by the caesarean section, while the mother's death would be probably or certainly hastened, she might legitimately consent to the operation or she might legitimately refuse the operation.

The child, however, has, as we said, one chance of delivery in two without the section, while the mother's death will very probably be hastened. If the mother's death would certainly be hastened by the section, her death, although it would be a circumstance and indirect, not an end nor a means, would not have counterbalanced against it necessarily the saving of the child's life, because the child has one chance in two in any event. In such an hypothesis the operation seems to be unjustifiable.

If, however, the hastening of the mother's death is only probable and not certain, may we oppose that probability to the advantage that must accrue to the child through the section? If the doubt that her death will be hastened is soundly probable, the woman may consent to the operation. She risks through charity the hastening of her own death for a great {47} advantage to the child, but she may risk legitimately immediate death in major surgical operations for an advantage less than the saving of life itself. She may have her skull opened for the removal of a depressed bone that is causing paralysis, she may have her knee-joint opened for the wiring of a patella to prevent lameness, but both these operations always immediately endanger life. She may go into a burning house, jump into a river, and so on, to save her child from possible injury.

AUSTIN ÓMALLEY.

{48}

III

ABORTION, MISCARRIAGE AND PREMATURE LABOUR

If pregnancy ends in the emptying of the uterus before the sixteenth week of gestation, the condition is called an abortion; if this happens between the sixteenth and the twenty-eighth weeks, it is miscarriage; if the child is born after the twenty-eighth week but before full term, the birth is premature. The term "abortion" in the popular mind carries with it the notion of criminal interference, and the word "miscarriage" is used for both abortion and miscarriage by the laity; physicians, on the other hand, commonly use the term "abortion" for both abortion and miscarriage. These conditions may occur spontaneously or they may be induced artificially.

Spontaneous abortions are very frequent; perhaps one in every five or six pregnancies is the proportion: the writer has known a single physician, not a specialist in obstetrics, to be called to three in one day and that in private practice. From 150 to 200 children in every 1000 that are conceived never get a chance for baptism. In the early months of pregnancy the foetus is usually dead before expulsion takes place. Twisting of the cord, hydramnios, syphilis, an acute infectious disease in the mother, poisonings of the mother by metals and the like substances, maternal cardiac and renal diseases, chronic inflammations and displacements of the womb, and violent emotions are some of the causes of abortion. In certain women a slight exertion, a misstep, a fall, a ride over a rough road, the _debitum conjugale_, and similar causes bring on abortion; in other women almost no shock is enough to make them miscarry. Inflammations and displacements of {49} the womb cause most of the abortions in the first four months, and after that time syphilis and Bright's disease are the chief forces at work.

If a woman in early pregnancy begins to lose blood from the uterus, and has pain in her back and lower abdomen, abortion is threatened; if this hemorrhage is marked, and the cervix is dilated, the abortion will very probably occur; and the escape of the _liquor amnii_ renders the abortion unavoidable. In this latter case the vagina and the cervical canal are packed with sterile gauze to check the hemorrhage, and after twenty-four hours it is removed. Then commonly the entire ovum comes away with the gauze, or what remains of it is taken out with a curette.

Valvular lesions of the heart in pregnancy make a maternal mortality of about 28 per centum, according to Guérard, and when compensation is lost the mortality may run from 48 to even 100 per centum with different physicians and different cases. The prognosis is good as long as compensation is retained, but very bad if this fails. In the latter condition premature labour is indicated, or the early removal of the viable child. Catholic physicians may not induce artificial abortion of an unviable foetus. The decree of the Holy Office concerning this matter is as follows:

Beatissime Pater,--Stephanus . . . Archiepiscopus Cameracensis . . . Quae sequuntur humiliter exponit:

Titus medicus, cum ad praegnantem graviter decumbentem vocabatur, passim animadvertebat lethalis morbi causam aliam non subesse praeter ipsam praegnationem, hoc est, foetus in utero praesentia, una igitur, ut matrem a certa atque imminenti morte salvaret, praesto ipsi erat via, procurandi scilicet abortum seu foetus et ejectionem. Viam hanc consueto ipse inibat, adhibitis tamen mediis et operationibus, per se atque immediate non quidem ad id tendentibus, ut in materno sinu foetum occiderent, sed solummodo ut vivus, si fieri posset, ad lucem ederetur, quamvis proxime moriturus, utpote qui immaturus omnino adhuc esset.

Jamvero lectis quae die 19 Augusti, 1888, Sancta Sedes ad Cameracenses Archiepiscopos rescripsit: _tuto doceri non posse_ licitam esse quamcumque operationem directe occisivam foetus, etiam si hoc necessarium foret ad matrem salvandam: dubiis haeret Titius circa {50} liceitatem operationum chirurgicarum, quibus non raro ipse abortum hucusque procurabat, ut praegnantes graviter aegrotantes salvaret.

Quare ut conscientiae suae consulat supplex Titius petit: utrum enuntiatas operationes in repetitis dictis circumstantiis instaurare tuto possit.

Feria iv, die 24 Julii, 1895.

In Congregatione generali S. Romanae et Universalis Inquisitionis . . . Emi ac Rmi Domini Cardinales . . . respondendum decreverunt: _Negative_, juxta alias decreta, diei scilicet 28 Maii, 1884, et 19 Augusti, 1888.

. . . Sanctissimus Dominus noster . . . approbavit.

Other documents referring to the same matter are the following:

Epistola ad Archiepiscopum Cameracensem. . . . Anno 1886, Amplitudinis tuae Praedecessor dubia nonnulla hinc supremae Congregationi proposuit circa liceitatem quarumdem operationum chirurgicarum craniotomiae affinium. Quibus sedulo perpensis, Eminentissimi ac Reverendissimi Patres Cardinales una mecum Inquisitores Generales, feria iv, die 14 currentis mensis, respondendum mandaverunt:

In scholis catholicis tuto doceri non posse licitam esse operationem chirurgicam quam craniotomiam appellant, sicut declaratum fuit die 28 Maii, 1884, et quamcumque chirurgicam operationem directe occisivam foetus vel matris gestantis.

Idque notum facio Amplitudini tuae, ut significes professoribus facultatis medicae Universitatis catholicae Insulensis. . . .

Romae, die 19 Augusti, 1889. . . .

R. CARD. MONACO.

The date of this response here is 1889, but in the preceding decree it is given as 1888. In the _Acta Sanctae Sedis_ the date is 1889.

Another letter from Cardinal Monaco is this:

Eme et Rme Dne,--Emi PP. mecum Inquisitores generales in Congregatione habita feria iv, die 28 labentis Maii, ad examen revocarunt dubium ab Eminentia tua propositum--An tuto doceri possit in scholis catholicis licitam esse operationem chirurgicam, quam Craniotomiam appellant, quando scilicet, eâ omissâ, mater et infans perituri sint, eâ e contra admissâ, salvanda sit mater, infante pereunte?

{51}

--Ac omnibus diu et mature perpensis, habita quoque ratione eorum quae hac in re a peritis catholicis viris conscripta ac ab Eminentia tua hinc Congregationi transmissa sunt, respondendum esse duxerunt: _Tuto doceri non posse_.

Quam responsionem cum SSmus D. N. in audientia ejusdem feriae ac diei plene confirmaverit, Eminentiae tuae communico. . . .

R. CARD. MONACO. Romae, 31 Mail, 1884.

Emo Archiepiscopo Lugdunensi.

Another decree concerning abortion is in part as follows:

Beatissime Pater,--Episcopus Sinaloen. ad pedes S.V. provolutus, humiliter petit resolutionem insequentium dubiorum:

I. Eritne licita partus acceleratio quoties ex mulieris arctitudine impossibilis evaderet foetus egressio suo naturali tempore?

II. Et si mulieris arctitudo talis sit, ut neque partus praematurus possibilis censeatur, licibitne abortum provocare aut caesaream suo tempore perficere operationem? . . .

Feria iv, die 4 Mail, 1898.

In Congregatione habita, etc. . . . EE. ac RR. Patres rescribendum censuerunt:

Ad I. Partus accelerationem per se illicitam non esse, dummodo perficiatur justis de causis et eo tempore ac modis, quibus ex ordinariis contingentibus matris et foetus vitae consulatur.

Ad II. Quoad primam partem, _negative_, juxta decretum Feria iv, 24 Julii, 1895, de abortus illiceitate. Ad secundum vero quod spectat; nihil obstare quominus mulier de qua agitur caesareae operationi suo tempore subjiciatur. . . .

In sequenti Feria vi, die 6 ejusdem mensis et anni . . . SSmus responsiones EE. ac RR. Patrum approbavit.

Pyelonephritis (an inflammation of the kidney where pus is present), from the pressure of the pregnant uterus, is a condition which sometimes obliges the physician to bring about premature labour to save the mother. The symptoms usually appear in the latter half of gestation.

Chorea ("St. Vitus' Dance"), when it develops during pregnancy, has a maternal mortality of from 17 to 22 per centum. It may cause death before the child is viable, and to empty {52} the uterus will stop the symptoms. Here the decrees of the Holy Office will occasionally prevent the Catholic physician from interfering.

If a grave surgical operation is imperatively indicated during pregnancy, and may not be put off until after delivery, it should be undertaken in many cases, because modern technique commonly does not bring about an abortion; but, in general, no rule can be given--each case must be judged separately.

If a pregnant woman has at the same time considerable albumen in her urine and a low excretion of urea, her condition is very dangerous. To empty her uterus will, in most cases, relieve the renal trouble, but in any case premature labour is not to be induced rashly: many women escape, when by all the rules they should die.

Eclampsia is a very grave complication of pregnancy, and it was formerly supposed to be uraemia. The disease is characterized by convulsions, loss of consciousness, and coma. It occurs, commonly, in the second half of gestation, but it has been observed as early as the third month. About 70 to 80 per centum of the cases are in primiparous women. The convulsions may come on altogether unexpectedly, but commonly the attack begins with symptoms of toxaemia. Eclampsia may occur before, during, or after parturition. When it comes before term it usually ends in spontaneous or artificial abortion, but at times the woman dies undelivered. Now and then she may recover and be delivered at term.

The kidneys are usually affected, even in those cases in which albuminous urine is not found. There is also a hemorrhagic inflammation of the liver; and oedema and congestion of the brain, with or without apoplexy, are other symptoms of the disease. There are other lesions, but the chief are in the kidneys, liver, and brain.

The aetiology of the disease is not yet known, and there are very many theories offered to explain it. The prognosis is always serious, and the condition is one of the most dangerous found in pregnancy. The mortality varies, but it is about from 20 to 25 per centum in the women, and from 33 to 50 per centum in the children. It is impossible to determine {53} the prognosis in particular cases, but a large number of quickly recurring convulsive seizures, with a weak, thready pulse, and a high temperature usually indicate a fatal ending. Apoplexy, oedema of the lungs, and paralysis also, as a rule, end in death.

If the uterus is emptied during the convulsions, these cease either immediately or soon after delivery, in from 66 to 93 per centum of the cases, and the maternal mortality then is about 11 per centum. With the expectant treatment, in convulsive cases, about 28 per centum of the women die, although a use of aconite in these cases may better the prognosis.

Pernicious vomiting (hyperemesis gravidarum) is another complication of pregnancy, which sometimes results fatally if the uterus is not emptied. There are cases, especially those with high fever, which end in death despite all treatment. Here, again, the aetiology of the disease is not known. There is commonly an element of hysteria in the condition, and in such a case moral suggestion often has a curative effect Any bodily irritation is to be removed. Eye-strain alone is enough to cause persistent vomiting. It is very difficult to decide when premature labour is absolutely indicated, because some very bad cases recover spontaneously when all hope is lost.