another comment on ectopic pregnancy

I very much appreciate the further comments of Karen Stohr and Rob and Julian Velasco. The problem I have with Grisez, Finnis, and Boyle's argument is that it seems too abstract. It seems a much too facile way of just "redescribing" the actions of the doctor. It doesn't focus adequately on the physical act that is being undertaken. So, they justify craniotomy as not involving intentional killing because the surgeon "intends" to save the mother's life and is just rearranging the skull of the fetus. That seems euphemistic. Under this approach to thinking about intention, in the ectopic pregnancy example (and maybe this would apply to justify an abortion too) the doctor doesn't intend to "kill" the embryo he is just "removing" the embryo. I think that is some cases (as Chris Kaczor has pointed out), this "removal" can result in the successful implantation of the embryo and if that is true then the death of the embryo is not essential to accomplish the doctor's goals. Bill May cites a doctor who says that this removal-with-possibility-of-implantation is not the way this procedure is usually employed. I'd agree that the physical description isn't alone decisive, and that it is not decisive that the doctor acts on the embryo. May does distinguish salpingectomy by stating that it is a procedure performed on the body of the mother and not the child and that a salpingostomy is performed on the child's body, securing its death in the very act of removing it. May seems to have in mind something that Kevin Flannery has discussed in trying to distinguish intention/foresight--that we ought to look at the norms of medical practice. As Flannery states in discussing the hysterectomy example, it is to benefit the mother's health that the gravid cancerous uterus is removed. The craniotomy does no good to the patient upon whom the doctor acts although the purpose is good (to save the mother's life).

I am not sure this adequately responds to Karen's arguments, and my colleague Ed Lyons tells me that my account presented here doesn't do the job. I thought I'd post these reflections in order to stimulate some further discussion. I think this excahnge has helped me to clarify my thinking, even if that might not be apparent to anyone else.

Thanks again.

Richard M.