Part 9

The woman, then, in Case II. before operation has one chance in three of life if no operation is done until the child is viable, and if she remains alive till the child is viable (when she must be operated upon) her chances for life will be no better, judging from modern statistics.

At any moment, therefore, she is in actual peril of death by two chances in three, and probably more if all special circumstances are considered. The foetus is a materially unjust aggressor in this case before rupture or other similar mishap, as it was in Case I., but not to the same extent. In Case II. it is a materially unjust aggressor as two is to three; in Case I. it is a materially unjust aggressor as three is to three.

If a lunatic is just about to fire three cartridges at me, I may know the chances are only two in three, or even only one in three, that he will hit me fatally, nevertheless I may licitly kill him to stop the firing and save my life. The mother in Case II. is in exactly similar danger of life.

The objection that the danger to my life from the action of the lunatic exists hic et nunc and that the danger to the mother's life does not threaten hic et nunc, is not of any weight. She is in actual danger hic et nunc, even while the surgeon is in the room examining her. Moreover, the matter of time here is accidental. If you give a man a poison that may kill him in ten hours, or one that may kill him in ten days, the action is essentially the same.

I am of the opinion that if this second case were proposed to moral theologians many of them would decide that the surgeon should explain the case fully to the patient or her family, and if immediate operation were insisted upon he should withdraw from the case. Nevertheless, as far as I can see, he has sound probabilism on the side that operation is justifiable.

But, it may be objected, in Case I. the surgeon ligated the uterine and ovarian arteries to stop an actual hemorrhage, and he permitted the death of the foetus; in Case II. there is no hemorrhage yet, there may possibly be none at all. I answer {33} that in Case II. if he operates he ties the two arteries to forestall an imminent hemorrhage which might begin within the next hour if it were not securely shut off, and to forestall sepsis by leisurely and proper precautions, and exactly as in the first case he permits the death of the foetus, he indirectly kills an unjust aggressor. If the lunatic is aiming at me I do not have to wait until he begins firing to licitly shoot at him. The sooner I shoot, servato moderamine inculpatae tutelae, the more prudent my action.

To put it in another form--in Case II. the surgeon is standing before a dam (the stretched Fallopian tube) that is threatening to break at any moment and cause death to a woman below it, because there is a lunatic (the foetus) behind it tearing away the masonry. If the surgeon shunts off the water just above the dam (the ligation of the arteries), he will suddenly let the lunatic who is tearing away the masonry fall down to the rocks at the bottom of the dam and be killed. May he let the lunatic fall? Certainly he may. But perhaps the lunatic will not succeed in tearing away the masonry. He is well provided with tools to do so; the chances are even two in three that he will succeed. Is he or the woman to be given the benefit of the doubt? The woman, by all means; she has a doubt worth in juridic value at the least twice as much as that which the lunatic has.

In any case of ectopic gestation the foetus has a very faint chance indeed of even living long enough for baptism if the expectant treatment is employed. We have seen that between November 1809 and November 1896 there were reported 77 cases of operation for the delivery of viable foetuses. Eleven of these children survived, 67 died within a few months, and many of these died just after delivery. Still, probably all might have been baptised. Judging, however, from the geographical distribution of the cases (see Kelly's Operative Gynaecology, vol. ii. p. 458) and the names of the operators, only about 14 of these children received baptism.

Now, since Schrenck found 610 ectopic gestations reported in five years, this indicates that the average number of cases of ectopic gestation which occur in the civilised world is at the least 122 a year, for many more (twice as many, at the lowest {34} estimate) are not diagnosed or not reported when diagnosed. In the 80 years, then, between 1809 and 1896 there were at the least 9760 cases of ectopic gestation in the civilised world; in the uncivilised countries there were certainly as many more with not a child saved, or even brought out of the pelvic cavity. To be sure, by rejecting perhaps a third of the cases through bad diagnoses and neglect of reports, there were 20,000 cases; and in all these hardly 20 children baptised--one in a thousand.

Modern surgical methods and improved diagnosis will do little to better the condition, from the nature of the disease. Between 1893 and 1896 there were 21 cases of operation for the delivery of viable foetuses reported, and this list is approximately correct, because the surgeons that operate on such material are men that as a rule report their work even when it is to their discredit. In these 21 cases, 6 mothers, 28 per centum died, 72 per centum recovered. Even if modern surgery should save all the mothers who had escaped until the foetus was viable, and should bring all the children to baptism, there would not be more than about 7 such cases in the world annually. Increased skill in diagnosis would raise the number of children brought to baptism, but it would more than proportionately raise the whole number of ectopic gestations discovered. If 10 foetuses were brought from the pelvic cavity alive in the 130 cases of ectopic gestation of the year, the chances for an extrauterine foetus to only reach baptism at a viable age (not to live after baptism) are only 7 in 100 at a most liberal estimate. Statistics are unreliable, of course, but I am giving odds of two to one. The foetus has a much better chance for baptism if the coeliotomy is done as early in the pregnancy as possible, but it has a negligible chance of life in any case. Since the creation of man there have been less than 15 extrauterine children saved, and of these 15 four were less than a year old when reported, and three under five years of age: the oldest was fifteen years of age, and all were weaklings.

The practical rule, then, is that the ectopic foetus will die anyhow, and operation only indirectly (mark the word) accelerates the inevitable death of a materially unjust aggressor, {35} while it gives the mother the best chance for her life, which is in very grave peril.

Case III. The surgeon before operation diagnoses with the help of consultors extrauterine pregnancy, but he or they can not tell whether the foetus is alive or not. What should he do?

In my opinion he may operate with much more solid probability than that which exists in Case II. If the argument is more for the death of the foetus than for its life, this, of course, strengthens the permissibility of the operation.

(1) The danger to the mother is exactly the same,caeteris paribus, as in Case II.; (2) the foetus is only probably alive. An actual danger to life is opposed to the probable life of a materially unjust aggressor; therefore the surgeon may probably operate at once. Probable here is used in the technical sense of the term.

Case IV. The following case is given because a similar one was proposed in the articles in the American Ecclesiastical Review, but it is not a practical case.

The surgeon, after consultation, does not know whether the growth in a woman's pelvis is a malignant tumour or a sac containing an extrauterine foetus. If the growth is a malignant tumour, the woman is in actual and certain danger of life, her death is a mere matter of time if a malignant tumour is not removed, and the sooner the tumour is removed the better. If operation is deferred, metastases of the tumour will have occurred, and operation will be too late. The indication when we find a malignant tumour is, if it is not already too late to operate, to take it out at once.

If the surgeon thinks that the growth may possibly be a foetus, and he puts off the operation until a time when certain signs of pregnancy should be present to establish a diagnosis of gestation, or their lack to establish a diagnosis of tumour, it would almost surely be too late to operate in the event the growth turned out to be a malignant tumour.

As has been said, the case is not practical, because malignant tumours of the tube are so very rare that they are not to be looked for,--only one or two have been observed. {36} Malignant tumours about the tube should be diagnosed. Supposing, however, the case to stand, it offers in favour of operation a probabilism stronger than that in any case except Case I., because the mother's danger is graver, and the argument concerning the foetus is the same as that in Case III.

Case V. Suppose a doubtful case like Case III. or Case IV., but after the surgeon has opened the abdomen he finds a foetus evidently alive. This is an improbable but a possible case. Case V. then becomes like Case II. with the addition of another grave danger to the lives of both the mother and the foetus, which is the coeliotomy already performed. The suggestion that the surgeon can leave the woman, back out of the case, is absurd. If he closes the abdomen, the coeliotomy may cause tubal abortion, the wound might have to be opened again in a few hours or a few days, and the mother would be left in much greater peril than she was in Case II. For the reasons already given, he should go on with the operation.

Case VI. Suppose a case like Case V. in every particular except that when the surgeon finds the foetus he can not tell whether it is alive or not. He should, a fortiori, finish the operation.

Case VII. A case of ectopic gestation is diagnosed, the conditions are explained to the woman, and she refuses to be operated upon. Is she justified? The probability is one to two that she will escape death if she waits, and much less than one to two if she finally refuses operation. The moralists would tell her she may refuse operation.

Case VIII. Let us suppose a case where a Fallopian tube either has its lumen so narrowed by a gonorrhoeal inflammation that although the spermatozoa may pass through and fecundate the ovum this fecundated ovum can not get out to the uterus; or, secondly, that the gonorrhoeal infection has completely shut the tube, yet migratory fecundation has occurred through the route of the other tube and the passage along the fundus of the uterus to the ovary of the infected side. In either case an ectopic gestation begins.

The first case is improbable from a medical point of view, {37} and the second is barely possible. Gonorrhoeal infection of the tubes is common enough, but when it occurs it usually shuts the tube up permanently. In chronic salpingitis at times the ovarian end of the tube is not wholly closed at once, and since the body of the ovary is very rarely affected by gonorrhoea, there is a possibility worth considering of a tubal pregnancy through migration to occur.

In such a condition the woman might have been infected with gonorrhoea, first, before her marriage through fornication or accident; second, after her marriage through adultery or accident; third, after the marriage by her husband.

If she had been infected through fornication or adultery, she is accountable for the foreseen consequences of her sin, and she has put an impediment for which she is responsible before the embryo. Suppose the physician knows these facts. Then the excuse for indirectly hastening the death of the foetus does not, at first sight, seem to exist, because the foetus is apparently not a materially unjust aggressor. It could easily happen that a surgeon's refusal to operate in a case like this would cause the death of the mother and foetus. Should he let both perish? Is he to let the mother die for the sake of staving off for a half-hour the certain death of a useless embryo the size of a pigeon's egg? It is not a useless embryo the size of a pigeon's egg, but a human being, the most important thing on earth, and a human being shut off from life and baptism as a direct consequence of that woman's brutal sensuality. But the woman may be the mother of other helpless children. What is to be done? Let us recur to the example of the homicidal maniac.

If I accidently by a blow make a man insane and that insane man afterward tries to kill me, I or my protector may permit his death to save my life. If I maliciously make a man insane and he afterward tries to kill me, may I or my protector kill him in my defence? Some may say that I may not because I have lost all juridic superiority over the madman as a consequence of my sin against him. That position, however, does not seem to be correct.

If it is correct, parity makes the assertion true that the foetus in the case supposed above may not be indirectly {38} killed to save the mother. If it is not true, the foetus may be indirectly destroyed. Does my sin against the insane man give him a right to kill me? By no means. Nothing but defence of life or its equivalent gives any private individual the right to kill another. The man might kill me before this aggression of mine, in defence of his sanity, but after the fact such a killing would be mere revenge, or an actus hominis, not a right.

The woman, we suppose, has maliciously put the foetus in its position of material aggressor, but has the foetus the right to kill her? No; the foetus is an individual not acting in self-defence, it is merely growing. Has the woman or the surgeon, her protector, the right to permit the death of the foetus to defend the woman's life? I think they have, because the foetus here also is, from its unnatural position, a materially unjust aggressor.