EWTN Catholic Q&A
Indian woman in Ireland
Question from linda on 04-21-2013:

Last year an Indian women went to an Irish hospital complaining of back pain. She was pregnant. The doctor said she was having a septic miscarriage and that the baby would be dead in a few hours. The woman wanted an abortion, they refused. They kept checking for a heartbeat and wouldn't treat the woman until the baby was dead but then it was too late for the woman. The woman's family is blaming the hospital for it's 'draconian' laws about abortion. But it seems to me that if she was having a 'septic miscarriage' that the toxins would already have been in the woman's body and since we allow 'double effect' they could have treated the woman since only a direct abortion is forbidden but if the baby dies because of medicine given the mother, that's sad but not immoral. I don't understand how an abortion would be considered 'treatment' for anything. Could you please explain? Thanks.

Answer by Judie Brown on 04-23-2013:


If you read the latest news reports on Savita's tragic death you will see that there is a distinct possibility that no abortion was ever discussed or requested. See http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-reporter-who-broke-savita-story- there-may-have-been-no-request-for/