Are Tubal Pregnancies one of the 'exceptions'?

[Chaotic Void]

I have heard that Tubal Pregnancies are one of the 'exceptions' for having an abortion, due to the fact that if the child develops, he/she can harm and even kill the mother [and themself].

I'm just wondering if someone who knows a bit more on the subject can let me know if I should believe this or not.

Thanks.

[Jnthn]

I believe this is one of the situations where the principle of least harm applies - the mother should be saved by medical intervention.

J

[Little Shepherd]

Yes, this is one of the extremely rare exceptions. Tubal pregnancies are non-viable, and will result in the death of both the mother and child if not terminated. The child can not be saved, sadly, and at this point it's a life preservation issue.

[yxboom]

I have heard that Tubal Pregnancies are one of the 'exceptions' for having an abortion, due to the fact that if the child develops, he/she can harm and even kill the mother [and themself].

I'm just wondering if someone who knows a bit more on the subject can let me know if I should believe this or not.

Thanks.

to intentionally kill an innocent life is to violate the 6th commandment without exception.

[JenSen]

It is not possible for either a baby or a mother to survive if a tubal pregnancy occurs. A baby cannot implant in a fallopian tube, cannot survive there, and cannot be transported to the uterus for a safe pregnancy. What this means is that this is the situation where allowing such a pregnancy to continue would automatically mean allowing both mother and child to die without exception. Ending such a pregnancy is the only way to prevent a woman's death, and if ending that pregnancy is what she wants to go ahead with, most if not all prolife people I know of would say that such an action, while not something we WANT, is something that ought to be done to prevent her death.

[Hamster]

Tubal "pregancies" are a death sentence to both the mother and the child.

[Avi_of_Fierl]

I agree that these types of pregnancies are an exception. There is no way for either mother or child to survive if development continues.

[historic salve]

to intentionally kill an innocent life is to violate the 6th commandment without exception.
So you're saying that two deaths is better than one? I'd like to hear your justification for that kind of thinking.

[JenSen]

So you're saying that two deaths is better than one? I'd like to hear your justification for that kind of thinking.

That, and to intentionally let both woman and child die when neither would/could in any way be saved by letting the pregnancy continue (we simply don't have the medical technology to keep such a pregnancy going in any way, and there's no biological way a baby can develop to term in a fallopian tube without it bursting and the mother dying) is to refuse to save at least one life that CAN be saved. In this case, the only one really I can think of, we have the chance to save someone when it's impossible to save the second person. We ought to at least save one. Even if we don't like the way we have to do it.

It's worthy to note that technically, if one were to flush the baby out of the fallopian tube, that would be considered abortive. If one were to remove the fallopian tube entirely, it might be qualified in a different way. Catholic theology has a good, worthwhile thing or two to say on that, but I won't be getting into it tonight.

Edit ~ to clarify, I say all of the above as someone who holds prolife views. This is truly about the only instance, unless someone came up with an equally valid instance where a pregnancy would (with certainty) take a mother's life if it were carried further, that I'd entertain.

[damienl]

So you're saying that two deaths is better than one? I'd like to hear your justification for that kind of thinking.

I'm usually quite wary of that kind of arguments. They border on utilitarianism, which is totally alien to biblical ethics.

The doctrine of double effect applies here: saving the life of the mother is morally good (and even obligatory), the bad effect (the child will die) is involuntary and the good effect is produced directly by the action.

The death of the child is an unintended, unavoidable consequence of the procedure, which is the only one available. A good analogy would be having to choose between rescuing one of two people trapped in a burning building. You can reach one in time, but not the other and, as a result, the latter will have to die. But you did not will it, it is only a side effect of your rescuing the former.

I would also say that, in order to be biblically justifiable, the procedure must not directly harm the child. Salpingectomy is acceptable, salpingostomy or Methotrexate are not. This is the difference between throwing someone in front of a trolley and pulling a switch to divert it.

I suppose it would be easy to translate it into 'graded absolutist' terms: you have a greater duty to help someone who might survive than someone who has a 0% chance of survival.


Even if we don't like the way we have to do it.


You see, this is why I think we should qualify it a little bit more. If we accept that we can harm the child directly, then what are we to do in analogous situations? For instance, if you are interned in a Nazi concentration camp and a guard tells you that you can save 10 people if only you would murder another inmate. If you refuse, he will kill your intended victim AND ten other people in the camp. Would it be acceptable for you to kill the person? I say it would not, even if it would not violate your criteria.

[Hamster]

It's okay to take human life in self-defense, although in this instance it's obviously very tragic.

[JonLanceBarker]

A baby cannot implant in a fallopian tube, cannot survive there, and cannot be transported to the uterus for a safe pregnancy.

:eww: until i saw that sentence, i had no idea what a tubal pregnancy was. :eww:

yeah...definitely a self-defense issue.

[Zeluvia]

http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/468.html

I think you need to look at the entire class of etopic pregnancies, not just the fallopian ones.

[Teallaura]

An etopic pregnancy occurs when the fertilized ovum implants on any tissue other than the endometrial lining of the uterus.

An ovary/abdomen is no more viable for mother and child and the cervix which wouldn't be viable for the infant and might not be viable for the mother. The exception is when neither can be saved not merely when the infant is non-viable.

[Crow]

A surgeon is faced with a woman who has a tubal pregnancy. These usually aren't unwanted kids either. These women would have known that they were pregnant in most instances, and they had chosen not to "take care of it," AKA kill the baby. And now that woman is in the heart wrenching situation of knowing that there is no way that her child can survive, and that if the tubal pregnancy is not terminated she will almost certainly die.

The surgeon knows this too. This isn't some callous jerk who runs an abortion mill, this is a person who has dedicated his or her life to saving life. The baby will surely die. If he does nothing, the mother will most likely die--a very few survive a ruptured tubal pregnancy, but it's rare. Both the baby and the mother do not deserve to die. So what should he do, stand by and let them both die?

This is one of the tough dilemmas we face. Two innocent lives. You can't save them both. You can save one, but only one.

You save the life you can. No surgeon who removes an ectopic pregnancy does so to kill an innocent baby. For whatever reason, a pregnancy has gone horribly wrong and the baby is doomed. That baby can't be saved. But the mother's life can be saved, and I think that it is immoral to withhold treatment that could save her life from her, deeply, criminally, and sinfully immoral.

I believe that God is wise and loving and knows the heart and intent of the surgeon who would end a tubal pregnancy to save the woman, just as I believe that He knows the heart and intent of one who hastens a dying woman's death by performing an emergency C section to save the life of the child she carries. We are thankful when a baby can be cut from a dying woman and be given his life. I think that we should be equally thankful when a doomed baby can be cut from a woman and let her keep hers. Circumstances beyond human control have doomed the child in a tubal pregnancy from the beginning. It is within human power to try to save the mother's life, and all effort should be made to do so.

[damienl]

Yes, but do you have a greater duty not to harm someone by a positive action, by a lack of action, or is it mostly the same?

I'd say that you have a greater duty not to harm someone that you have to save them, e.g. nobody will blame your for not having jumped into the water in order to same someone, but they will definitely have something to say about pushing someone into the water.

In any case, it is a decision that should be taken prayerfully and with due consideration for everything that it involves. It would not take issue with anyone who arrives at the conclusion that an abortion would be acceptable in this case, since the issue is too thorny to give a clear answer. If there is another possibility, even if it is more dangerous or more uncomfortable (e.g. the removal of a whole body part instead of the direct taking of a life), I'd recommend doing it. Absent that, it would be a very difficult decision to take and I sincerely hope I'll never have to make it.

[Sparko]

Yes, but do you have a greater duty not to harm someone by a positive action, by a lack of action, or is it mostly the same?

I'd say that you have a greater duty not to harm someone that you have to save them, e.g. nobody will blame your for not having jumped into the water in order to same someone, but they will definitely have something to say about pushing someone into the water.

Its not the same thing. A woman in this situation would be under the care of a doctor. Not some stranger walking by.

if you have it in your power to save someone in your care and you don't even try, you can be charged with negligent homicide.

[Avi_of_Fierl]

If there is another possibility, even if it is more dangerous or more uncomfortable (e.g. the removal of a whole body part instead of the direct taking of a life), I'd recommend doing it.

if the child is implanted in the fallopian tube and that is removed, then the woman's chances of conceiving another child is reduced.

[mostlyharmless]

This is one of the tough dilemmas we face. Two innocent lives. You can't save them both. You can save one, but only one.



It would be tough if it was - Two innocent lives. You can save either but not both. Luckily its not.

[casaba]

If there is another possibility, even if it is more dangerous or more uncomfortable (e.g. the removal of a whole body part instead of the direct taking of a life), I'd recommend doing it. Absent that, it would be a very difficult decision to take and I sincerely hope I'll never have to make it.

Removing the improperly attached fetus with minimal discomfort and danger to the mother is somehow inferior to removing a larger section of tissue--i.e. a part of the woman's body--in an admittedly uncomfortable and dangerous procedure? It both cases, it is the procedure that ends the life of the fetus, but in the latter, you also have a greater chance of ending the life of the mother, or at the very least reduce her chances of having a child in the future. I'm sorry, but I am missing something in your logic?

[Teallaura]

One is direct and the other indirect, Casaba. The difference between actively killing the child and passively allowing the child to die as a result of the procedure. I think the distinction is a false one - indirect is merely a back door to the same end. Removing the tube also removes the baby - that it is indirect doesn't negate the fact that the baby's immediate death will result.

[spitndirt]

Ok.....I'll go out on a limb here.

I would say that the statement "...the child must die..." would apply in the case of a tubal pregnancy. Now, don't take this statement the wrong way....cuz the child will die regardless of anyone making this statement. So, no one can respond by saying "...No! The child must not die...". I mean....you could respond this way, but the child will die regardless. Why, then, can we not say "...the child must die..."? No reason that I can see.....

The flip side: If we can say "..the child must die..." we can then say "...the mother must not die...". To say anything less would be to kill her. Or worse, stand idley by and let her commit suicide. But aren't we assuming responsibility for the child's death when we say "...the child must die..."? No silly.....the child will die regardless of what we say. We only say this so that we can impose a rule that says "...the mother must not die...". If we allow the mother to die along with her child then our statement would have to be "...we must be partially culpable for a death...". The only way to remain innocent in the matter is to say "...the child must die and the mother must not...".

How's that for black and white....? I mean...if we are seeking to make a rule here we had better go the whole way so that all involved are clear and remain innocent in the matter. Or are we...ummm....not really seeking a resolution here? I mean, some get awefully uncomfortable when pulled outside the blissful grey blurr.....

[casaba]

One is direct and the other indirect, Casaba. The difference between actively killing the child and passively allowing the child to die as a result of the procedure. I think the distinction is a false one - indirect is merely a back door to the same end. Removing the tube also removes the baby - that it is indirect doesn't negate the fact that the baby's immediate death will result.

Indirect? The idea that removing excess tissue with the fetus somehow makes the procedure "indirect" is not clear to me. If I shut someone in a room and allow them the starve to death am I less culpable for their death than if I feed them cyanide? Hey, it wasn't the me that killed them, it was their lack of food. For that matter, even in the case of the cyanide, it was their body's reaction to the poison that killed them, not me.

No matter what procedure is chosen, the life of the fetus will be ended by said procedure. It seems to be agreed that protecting the well being of the mother is the goal of the procedure, and thus it seems logical that the procedure that does least harm to the mother should be chosen. (I don't know how early in pregnancy such cases are detected. If the fetus had developed to the point of being able to feel pain, minimizing any pain to the fetus would also be a good thing.)

(Before I get accused of trolling, let me say this: Those who have read my other posts know that I do not believe in Right-to-Life from the moment of conception, but I do support the Right-to-Life of the fetus at a later time, prior to delivery. It has been difficult to find discussion on the topic of a fetus's Right-to-Life in which the participants are not at (pre)decidedly polar extremes. I found this thread to be an interesting case where danger to the life of the mother is clear and I was happy to see honest and open discussion. Please tell me if my questions and input is unwelcome. I was taken aback and continue to be a bit confused by damienl's approach. I would like to ask damienl if he, or anyone else, can explain the position more or agrees with what I wrote above. Sorry, Teal, but your explanation didn't help me.)

[Teallaura]

:shrug: Like I said, I think it's a false distinction - but I do think that's the distinction he's drawing.

[Jezz]

I once heard a bishop tell a story...

Once upon a time there was a pious woman who was pregnant. The doctor said there was something wrong with the pregnancy and that the baby would certainly die and she might too if she continued with the pregnancy. She said to the doctor "thanks, but I'll trust in God to protect us." She carried the baby to term and gave birth to a healthy boy.

The bishop said he was glad that she did, because that woman was his mother.

I apologise I can't remember the specific details - I don't know if it was an ectopic pregnancy or if there was some other problem. Bottom line is, though, that God can work miracles.

[Jezz]

A baby cannot implant in a fallopian tube...
This isn't true. The whole problem here is that a baby can implant in a fallopian tube, but there isn't room in the fallopian tube for him/her to develop there. That's why they're dangerous.

[Avi_of_Fierl]

Removing the improperly attached fetus with minimal discomfort and danger to the mother is somehow inferior to removing a larger section of tissue--i.e. a part of the woman's body--in an admittedly uncomfortable and dangerous procedure? It both cases, it is the procedure that ends the life of the fetus, but in the latter, you also have a greater chance of ending the life of the mother, or at the very least reduce her chances of having a child in the future. I'm sorry, but I am missing something in your logic?

I'm with you, casaba. I think the path of least harm should be taken in this instance. the woman may not have wanted to end her pregnancy, but if it will surely kill both her and the child, one life should be saved, and in the safest way possible. and I'm not too keen on the idea of removing part or all of the fallopian tube because then the chances of the woman being able to have another child is reduced. if she didn't want to end the first pregnancy, chances are she might want to try again.

[JenSen]

This isn't true. The whole problem here is that a baby can implant in a fallopian tube, but there isn't room in the fallopian tube for him/her to develop there. That's why they're dangerous.

You're correct, and that's what I tried to say with the rest of that sentence: "A baby cannot implant in a fallopian tube, cannot survive there, and cannot be transported to the uterus for a safe pregnancy." I meant it all together. In other words, a baby cannot implant in a fallopian tube WHILE surviving". There's, very unfortunately, no chance of it.

[Vigilante]

Perspective might be another angle to take on this matter.
When things like this happen, one can hardly expect all parties involved to sit calmly down and discuss it rationally.

Suppose you are the mother, are you willing to die so the child you carry can live? Are you willing to risk your life (in some cases like with the bishop story above) to try and carry to term against all odds? Would you go as far as telling the doc to end your life and save the baby?

If you are the husband, do you risk the lives of BOTH your wife and child to go full term? Do you attempt to save your wife at all costs? Would you even consider letting your wife die to save the child?

If you are the doctor, do you demand that any procedure or action take place? Do you allow a death to take place when it might not otherwise? Do you find a way to rise above the intense emotional rational of the couple to do what you think is best?


I would have to say, and God willing it never happens, that I would save my wife. No contest, no choice. Even if my wife is screaming to sacrifice herself to save the child, I'd knock her out and make the doctor do it.

In any case, doesn't it seem like technology might be sufficient some day to be able to transplant the fetus? If not, I don't know, but we can hope procedures will develop which can save the child in such cases.

[Teallaura]

The baby cannot be saved, Vig - the tubes simply cannot stretch like the uterus - eventually the baby will rupture the tube and usually in the first trimester when saving the baby outside the womb is least likely. Without intervention, Mom is going to die so even if the baby survived the constriction it's doomed to die with Mom.

[Vigilante]

Yes but I mean like if there were a way to take it out and incubate it or something. I dunno. Implant it properly, or grow it in a vat. With technology, who knows. So if you could save the baby by growing it in a lab vat, would you do that?

[Sparko]

Yes but I mean like if there were a way to take it out and incubate it or something. I dunno. Implant it properly, or grow it in a vat. With technology, who knows. So if you could save the baby by growing it in a lab vat, would you do that?

right now they dont have the technology/skill to do that. maybe one day.

[Avi_of_Fierl]

hopefully one day they will be able to develop the technology to save both lives.

[RumTumTugger]

hopefully one day they will be able to develop the technology to save both lives.

Amen to that.

[Zeluvia]

Yeah, we can implant the embryo in MEN !! = )

[Chaotic Void]

Yeah, we can implant the embryo in MEN !! = )

Nah... I've spoken with many men and women on the concept...

Men would die from the pain.

[lucyR212]

I have a question and I already know the ultra-trad RC answer, but I am high risk for ectopic pregnancy, and I am very concerned due to the trends (certainly, a good one) to restrict abortion;
But am concerned that women's lives are being put at risk needlessly in this country because of the fine line that is been drawn between ending an ectopic pregnancy and an elective abortion. As it is, A Catholic Woman has to jump through all kinds of hoops, and endure unnecessary invasive or more radically surgery than needed to fit the definition of "double effect".
Ectopic pregnancies are diagnosed so early that they can be resolved without surgery (a medication known as Methotrexate, (it's not an RU486 drug abortion drug and works differntly), and it has been around a long time is used widespread for years in the treatmentand of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis lupus, and other autoimmune diseases.

There are also two very safe (if done before the tube ruptures) surgical options, but the one that is least invasive and leaves the women's fallopian tube intact is not the one "allowed" (depending on who you talk to), because it directly attacks the fetus; whereas if the surgeon removes the portion of the fallopian tube where the fetus has attached, it is seen as removing a diseased organ, and not a pregnancy...though the results are the same, except the woman no needlessly loses 50% of her fertility, and is subject to more radical surgery and complications of infection and every other risk of surgery.
It seems that the final outcome is always the same, the baby will die in virtually 100% of the cases; why should the woman risk her life and lose her fertility for some medieval way around committing a grave sin.
I think no matte what treatment a woman choses, it is a matter of self defense; The embryo is someplace it is not supposed to be, and risks the mothers life every day he/she stays and grows there.

Before the stories of miracle babies that grew to term with a mother's abdomen start getting passed around, and women, ....
keep this in mind aprox.. 97.7 % occur in the fallopian tube, which means the fetus has no chance of making it to viability.
Due to Early pregnancy detection and hormone tests, ectopic pregnancies can be diagnosed very early. Today 80% are diagnosed before rupture.

I am pro-life, but things are starting to get a bit crazy, especially among traditional Catholics and Traditional Catholic physicians.
What they have not been able to accomplish in by laws, there is a lot of junk science being used to in the fight against abortion.
All the sudden women who have had abortions are a high risk for breast cancer, psychiatric problems, and there is a new "widespread" -'Post -abortion" stress disorder" and "significant numbers of women end up under psychiatric care?
I've read the studies and they are junk science, but every one who is pro-life takes them as Gospel truth.
All life is sacred, but sometime there is more than one life at risk, and a woman's sanctity of life is being eroded in the name of the pro-life cause. I am not Roman Catholic, but my husband is, and I am seriously considering giving my medical advocate paper to someone other than him, because he feels conscience bound, even when the information is faulty, and he will trust a priest before a doctor, a situation that I find very alarming.
,
Mother's lives and future fertility are being needlessly risked because some self appointed Catholic Apologists, and conservative Catholic doctors have taken it upon themselves to second guess the the interpretations of the guideline as given by the US Bishops, for care of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy...for whatever reason...to be more catholic than the bishop, or whatever.

The absence of an intrauterine pregnancy above an established cut point of hCG
is consistent with an abnormal pregnancy but does not distinguish a miscarriage from an ectopic pregnancy.
Some doctors are playing with the odds and "observing" the pregnancy, to see if it spontaneously resolves itself without medical intervention, though the odds vary greatly from study to study, claim only 25%to 60-65%, may resolve on their own through spontaneous miscarriage.
For a pregnancy that has no chance of surviving and such varying odds of spontaneous resolution, and a significant chance of missing a rupture-what may look like a spontaneous abortion, may actually indicate a rupture of the tube has already occurred (29% of ectopic pregnancies with beta-HCG levels less than 1000 were ruptured, the level that some doctors assume miscarriage has occurred.)

Are Women being encouraged to become martyrs for the pro-life cause...it is certainly their prerogative, but they should not be fed false information, or take needless risks if not even the Church asks it of them. And that is exactly what is happening, and because it is seen as a Holy way of not forcing hard decisions to be made, I think more woman will become victims of this junk science and holier than the "Non-Catholic" mother who does take the safest and less maiming way out of this unfortunate situation.

The Catholic Church as already approved treatment to prevent this risk. Surgical intervention (that fits the definition of double effect and in no way is are the parents or the doctors held responsible for any grave sin.
I don't understand that National Conference of Catholic
Bishops. the UUSBC has studied in depth the Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services and approved specific treatments, organizations like CUF, and the amateur apologists over at EWTN Catholic Answers, can guilt women into a higher standard that endangers their life.

I understand the theology behind double effect, and why they may feel that a complete removal of the tube (indirectly causing fetal death) rather than removal of the fetus, and preserving the woman's fertility, is the conservative Catholic's choice, though personally, I think too much is being sacrificing a woman's fertility to adhere to a theological syllogism, is , excuse m...stupid.
But that is their choice. Don't even get me started on safer, non surgical treatments that would end the pregnancy, keep the tube intact, and not expose the mother to risks of invasive procedures. (although there are theologians who thinks this is a moral alternative).

Frankly, I find the whole thing alarming. the US looks to countries like those in South America, Philippines, and now some states, that are banning abortion...though it is still allowed in these cases, however what is happening is that women (especially poor women) are not getting treatment because doctors are afraid to perform even therapeutic abortions (fear of prosecution jail, social stigma) and already the mortality rate of pregnant women is rising for very treatable conditions like ectopic pregnancy, placenta previa, and placenta abruptio in those countries.

I am pro-life, but in this growing atmosphere of intolerance I fear that my daughters may not be able to get proper pre-natal care if the religious right, and the overzealous pro-lifers gets it's way and bans all non-therapeutic;

Another thing that troubles me, and I will put this on a separate thread is that on countries like Mexico where abortion has been banned,and that 90% of the country claims to be Roman Catholic Church, there is nothing being siad of done about the number of illegal abortions, which estimates put at between 6oo,ooo and1 million. That's still a lot of babies dying, and not a word is said, where are the vigils, the prayer services, the same respect for life that passes for the absolute demand of action whether the abortion is legal of not. Is it the same old Roman Catholic line, that as long as they are in control and get their way, abuses of the law are minor things and it's up to the law to take care of it.????

[yxboom]

So you're saying that two deaths is better than one?

uh, no.

I'd like to hear your justification for that kind of thinking.

i dont see the value in me justifying that kind of thinking. i will however add that tubal pregnancy is not an exception to murder via abortion; as stated by previous posters, the intent is to secure the life of both mother and child not in spite of the other.

[historic salve]

i dont see the value in me justifying that kind of thinking. i will however add that tubal pregnancy is not an exception to murder via abortion; as stated by previous posters, the intent is to secure the life of both mother and child not in spite of the other.
So you agree that the procedure is necessary in this narrow case, but you don't agree with the way some people are putting it. Is that right?

[yxboom]

pretty much

[Raphael]

I once heard a bishop tell a story...

Once upon a time there was a pious woman who was pregnant. The doctor said there was something wrong with the pregnancy and that the baby would certainly die and she might too if she continued with the pregnancy. She said to the doctor "thanks, but I'll trust in God to protect us." She carried the baby to term and gave birth to a healthy boy.

The bishop said he was glad that she did, because that woman was his mother.

I apologise I can't remember the specific details - I don't know if it was an ectopic pregnancy or if there was some other problem. Bottom line is, though, that God can work miracles.
Jezz, as I understand it, if there is a misdiagnosis with of there being an ectopic pregnancy (and the baby has actually implanted in the womb) then the surgery won't harm the baby. (i.e. removing the portion of the fallopian tube that doesn't contain the child will cannot kill the child)

Medical folk, am I correct with that?

[Teallaura]

It probably not the best thing for a pregnancy but if the child isn't in the Fallopian tube and nothing else is disturbed I see no reason that it would necessarily destroy the baby. Crow?

[Crow]

Any kind of surgery could cause a woman to abort. But removing a fallopian tube would be unlikely to affect a uterine pregnancy.

With ultrasound and laparoscopic technology as we have now, it's unlikely that a uterine pregnancy would be misdiagnosed as a tubal pregnancy. More likely an ectopic pregnancy that is not tubal would be mistaken for tubal. Occasionally, an fertilized egg escapes the fallopian tube altogether and implants on another area within the abdomen--usually the bowel, liver, or the exterior of the uterus. Rarely these pregnancies have been carried long enough that they can be delivered by cesarean section. This is because there is more room for the fetal sac to expand within the abdomen itself, as opposed to within the fallopian tube.

I think that some day tubal pregnancies will be salvageable. Perhaps if better medical technology can lead to earlier diagnosis these pregnancies can be treated by slitting the fallopian tube open and then securing it to the outside of the uterus or bringing it into the interior through an incision. At the present, we usually only learn that a pregnancy is tubal when rupture is imminent or has already occurred.

A placenta will adhere to and grow on pretty much any surface it contacts that has a good blood supply. It's the inability of the fallopian tube to stretch sufficiently to accommodate a growing fetus and the placenta that causes tubal pregnancies to be lost. Here's a case where the pregnancy implanted on the outside of the uterus, and the baby lived! LINK (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050926/miracle_baby_050926/20050926?hub=Health) This makes me think that someday physicians will be able to save the babies who have implanted in the fallopian tubes.

[Teallaura]

Hmmm... I wonder if the tube could be split until term (delivery by caesarian, obviously).

Whatever means, here's to that someday!

[Crow]

The tube itself doesn't have enough surface to support a pregnancy. A placenta covers a pretty large surface. I'm thinking that the best chance would be to split the tube and incise the uterus and pull the tube inside so that the placenta could spread to the uterine interior surface. There would be a chance of the uterus responding by contracting and expelling the baby, but in utero surgery on babies is already possible and has been done successfully. It would at least give the baby a chance.

I've seen the grief women go through when they have just learned that they are pregnant, are excited about having a child, then find out that the child cannot be saved because of tubal pregnancy. I hope that someday these women will have some chance of keeping their babies. It seems theoretically possible that some of these babies can be saved.

In utero surgery (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701619.html)

[Teallaura]

Makes sense. Solves the cramping problem experienced by the extra-uterine pregnancy you linked earlier since the uterus could presumably then expand normally.

[Crow]

Yup. Just because it isn't done yet doesn't mean that researchers won't come up with a treatment that can save these babies.

At one time, Rh+ babies born to Rh- mothers died much of the time. I nearly lost a sister and a brother to Rh disease. Within my lifetime research led to the development of rhoGAM, (http://www.rhogam.com/?gclid=CPzz9Nbv0pECFR0yFQodnEvnaQ) which prevents the Rh+ babies from causing the Rh- mother to develop antibodies which make her immune system attack Rh+ babies. It is conceivable that in the future losing a child to tubal pregnancy will be as infrequent as losing a child to Rh incompatibility. That would be a wonderful thing to see.

[JenSen]

I was told that in the early 1980s, Laura's mom, the person I'm living with at the moment, had a tubal ectopic pregnancy that couldn't make it. The local Catholic hospital refused to treat her and end the pregnancy, because at the time it was policy that such treatment would be abortion and therefore automatically wrong -- regardless of the obvious fact, which is that the baby could not even come close to ending the first term, let alone starting a second, without both her and the baby dying. As the story goes, she went to the local "non religious" hospital and had to have it done there. She told me that she did NOT want to lose this child. She wanted the child so badly. Loved the baby as soon as she found out she was pregnant, and then had all her hope dashed in having to end it. A couple years later, she got pregnant with Laura... and she was worried about the same thing happening, but that one went fine. And she said she was overjoyed and thankful.

If there's one message people should know, it's that when someone WANTS a baby that badly, it about devastates them to have to give it up. And that's why for the life of me I don't see how some people want an abortion so badly. Different circumstance, of course... but all the same... a baby's a gift from God. Having to turn away from that gift because you have no other medical choice would be heartbreaking. And since I heard that story from Laura's mom, my heart's absolutely gone out to women who are forced to lose a child they already love.... especially when they know they'll never get to know that child even a little while.

I pray that one day, we CAN save both lives..

[Avi_of_Fierl]

I was very touched by that story, jen. my heart goes out to all women in similar situations. I can't even imagine the pain these women go through, when they want to keep that child but know there is nothing they can do. I'm with you in prayer that one day, both lives will be able to be saved.