The principle of double effect solves the ectopic problem.
The principle of double effect applies:
(1) Your intention is to perform a good—to save the mother’s life by removing her cancerous uterus. The evil effect of causing the death of the baby is not desired. It is a very sad and unfortunate result of the good act.
(2) The evil effect does not cause the good result. You are removing a diseased organ that is killing the mother, not performing an abortion. The baby will die during or shortly after the operation,
but the purpose of the operation is not to kill the child.
(3) Two very grave matters must be weighed against each other. Saving one person is better than allowing both to die through inaction, even though it means the death of one.
The Mother’s (Insert Here) Health
The criteria used to determine that this rare choice is morally acceptable are the same criteria that tell us that abortions for “the health of the mother” are immoral. If an abortion is performed to preserve a less-than-life-threatening aspect of the mother’s health, it is simply wrong, by all three criteria of the moral principle of double effect.
Although the intention is ostensibly to preserve the health of the mother, all too often the mother’s mental or emotional health—even financial or social health—is invoked to justify the act. In some cases, the doctor may foresee problems arising in a pregnancy that would put the mother at risk.
But regardless of the reason cited, the action taken is the abortion of the child, and the direct intention of that act is death. When an abortion is performed to “preserve the health of the mother,” the abortion is the cause of any perceived benefit to the mother. In other words, an evil is being done to pursue a supposed good,
and this is never morally licit. Finally, we must weigh the moral gravity: A grave evil is being done—the direct and intentional killing of an innocent person—to achieve a lesser good. Whether the intended benefit to the mother’s health is small or great, actual or contrived, “good health” can never equal life itself. Abortions performed “for the health of the mother” fail the test on all three counts.
Actual cases where a decision must be made between the mother’s life and the baby’s are rare, but they do occur, and there is always a moral response. Morally mature, ethical doctors are equipped to handle these difficult situations in the rare instances that they arise.
Legislation to regulate these rare occurrences has opened the door to abortion on demand. Statistics bear this out. The National Right to Life Committee reports that 93 percent of abortions are performed for “social reasons,” while the mother’s health is cited in only 3 percent of the cases. (In another 3 percent the baby’s health is cited, and 1 percent cites rape or incest.) “Saving the life of the mother” never came up in the report (
www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html).
The principle is simple: The direct killing of an innocent life is a grave evil and is never allowed, but when the mother’s life is in danger,
medical ethics have always recognized the principle of double effect. And so has the Catholic Church, which has long protected the life of the mother. In 1907, long before abortion on demand was legal through most of the Western world, the
Catholic Encyclopedia included this statement in its article on abortion:
