Produced by Don Kostuch [Transcriber's notes] This is derived from the Internet Archive: http://www.archive.org/details/essaysinpastora00walsgoog Page numbers in this book are indicated by numbers enclosed in curly braces, e.g. {99}. They have been located where page breaks occurred in the original book. Obvious spelling errors have been corrected but "inventive" and inconsistent spelling is left unchanged. [End Transcriber's notes] {iii} ESSAYS IN PASTORAL MEDICINE BY AUSTIN ÓMALLEY, M.D., Ph.D., LL.D, PATHOLOGIST AND OPHTHALMOLOGIST TO SAINT AGNES'S HOSPITAL PHILADELPHIA and JAMES J. WALSH, M.D., Ph.D., LL.D. ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE AT THE NEW YORK POLYCLINIC SCHOOL FOR GRADUATES IN MEDICINE; PROFESSOR OF NERVOUS DISEASES AND OF THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 91 AND 93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK LONDON AND BOMBAY 1906 {iv} _Copyright, 1906_ By Longmans, Green, and Co. _All rights reserved._ THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, U. S. A. {v} PREFACE The term Pastoral Medicine is somewhat difficult to define because it comprises unrelated material ranging from disinfection to foeticide. It presents that part of medicine which is of import to a pastor in his cure, and those divisions of ethics and moral theology which concern a physician in his practice. It sets forth facts and principles whereby the physician himself or his pastor may direct the operator's conscience whenever medicine takes on a moral quality, and it also explains to the pastor, who must often minister to a mind diseased, certain medical truths which will soften harsh judgments, and other facts, which may be indifferent morally but which assist him in the proper conduct of his work, especially as an educator. Pastoral medicine is not to be confused with the code of rules commonly called medical ethics. The material of pastoral medicine requires constantly renewed discussion, because medicine in general is progressive enough frequently to devise better methods of diagnosis and treatment, and thus the postulates of the moral questions involved are changed. This discussion, however, is not easily made. The facts upon which the ethical part of pastoral medicine rests are furnished by the physician for the consideration and judgment of the moralist--the physician educated after modern methods knows little or nothing of ethics and can not himself make accurate moral decisions. The moralist, on the other hand, is commonly a poor counsellor to the physician, because long training in medicine is needed before the physical data of the moral decisions is comprehended. The physician, therefore, is at a loss to determine what he may or may not do in {vi} cases that involve the greatest moral responsibility, and the priest is a hesitating guide because the moral theologies do not convincingly present the doctrine in these cases. Now and then such subjects have been proposed for discussion to a group of physicians and moralists, but usually no practical conclusion has been reached because one side did not understand the other. In 1898 there was a series of articles on ectopic gestation in the _American Ecclesiastical Review_, in which moralists like Lehmkuhl, Sabetti, Aertnys, and Holaind, and some of the leading gynaecologists of America considered the questions but arrived at no decision. The physicians did not understand certain questions, other questions were on obsolete medical practice, essential questions were omitted, and from the data the moralists came to opposed conclusions. We find also in moral theologies deductions drawn from false medical sources. Reasons are given, for example, to justify the use of a large quantity of alcoholic liquor at a dose in cases of great pain, typhoid fever, snake-poisoning, and other diseases, in the supposition that such doses will benefit or cure the patient, whereas the physician that would follow that treatment would be guilty of malpractice. There was recently in America a discussion on the relation of öophorectomy to the _impedimentum impotentiae_. One side held that a lack of ovaries constitutes impotence; the other side, that it does not. The discussion was useful because it incidentally gathered the full doctrine of the moralists on this subject, but from the medical point of view there is no connection whatever between these conditions. A small number of books on pastoral medicine have been written by clergymen that were not physicians, and a few German books by physicians that were also moralists. Those by the physicians draw conclusions from antiquated medical practice, or they are mere popular treatises on hygiene; those by the clergymen have some value on the ethical side, but they are incomplete because the authors had not the necessary medical knowledge. The essays offered in this book by no {vii} means cover the entire field of pastoral medicine, but as far as they go we have endeavoured to offer the medical doctrine of the present day on the questions considered, and that as completely as is necessary to draw the moral inferences. Since, then, so many of the questions of pastoral medicine are not defined, physicians are likely to follow the doctrine of the standard medical books, which without exception advise them to take the life of a dangerous foetus almost as unconcernedly as they might prescribe an active drug, or in any case to put utility before justice. There is, therefore, an urgent necessity that competent men fix that shifting part of ethics and moral theology called pastoral medicine, and these essays are presented as a temporary bridge to serve in crossing a corner of the bog until better engineers lay down a permanent causeway. Some may think that the authors are inclined toward an exaggerated charity in suggesting the measure of responsibility for many human actions, but the physician that is brought much in contact with those suffering from mental defects of various kinds soon learns how easily complete responsibility becomes marred. Responsibility is dependent entirely upon free will; and while the great principle of free will remains solid in truth, no two men are free in exactly the same manner. Physical conditions have not a little to do with modifications of freedom of the will. To point out this fact to the clergyman and the physician has been our intention, for a proper appreciation of it will widen the bounds of charity and save many that are more sinned against than sinning from the injury of grievous misjudgment. It is better to run the risk of exculpating a few individuals whose responsibility is not entirely clear when the application of the same principles lifts many others above the rash judgment of those that can be of most help to them. {viii} {ix} CONTENTS _The Authorship of the respective Essays is indicated by the signature at the end of each Essay_. Chapter Page I. Ectopic Gestation 1 II. Pelvic Tumours in Pregnancy 40 III. Abortion, Miscarriage, and Premature Labour 48 IV. The Caesarean Section and Craniotomy 55 V. Maternal Impressions 60 VI. Human Terata and the Sacraments 69 VII. Social Medicine 88 VIII. Some Aspects of Intoxication 105 IX. Heredity, Physical Disease, and Moral Weakness 120 X. Hypnotism, Suggestion, and Crime 129 XI. Unexpected Death 135 XII. Unexpected Death in Special Diseases 150 XIII. The Moment of Death 164 XIV. The Priest in Infectious Diseases 168 XV. Infectious Diseases in Schools 187 XVI. School Hygiene 202 XVII. Mental Diseases and Spiritual Direction 211 XVIII. Neurasthenia 230 XIX. Hysteria 235 XX. Menstrual Diseases 240 XXI. Chronic Disease and Responsibility 245 {x} XXII. Epilepsy and Responsibility 251 XXIII. Psychic Epilepsy and Secondary Personality 259 XXIV. Impulse and Responsibility 266 XXV. Criminology and the Habitual Criminal 271 XXVI. Paranoia, a Study in Cranks 282 XXVII. Suicides 306 XXVIII. Venereal Diseases and Marriage 311 XXIX. Social Diseases 317 XXX. De Impedimento Matrimonii Dirimente Impotentia 326 APPENDIX. Bloody Sweat 347 INDEX 357 {1} ESSAYS IN PASTORAL MEDICINE I ECTOPIC GESTATION Ectopic gestation is gestation in the uterine adnexa, the peritoneal cavity, or the horn of an abnormal or rudimentary uterus. It is opposed to natural uterine gestation, and, since it includes pregnancy in an abnormal uterus, it is a more comprehensive term than extrauterine pregnancy. In this article the morality involved in the surgical treatment of ectopic gestation is considered; and to have the data requisite for judgment it is necessary to describe in outline the anatomy of the uterine adnexa and the growth of the foetus; to explain the varieties, effects, diagnosis, and treatment of ectopic gestation; to present the cases of this condition, or rather this disease, as they occur in medical practice; to set forth some of the moral principles or laws that govern medical practice, especially where there is question of life and death; and finally to apply these principles to the cases offered for investigation. The uterus is in the pelvic cavity, between the bladder and the rectum and above the vagina, into which it opens. It is a hollow, pear-shaped, muscular organ, somewhat flattened, and about three inches long, two inches broad, and one inch thick. The base or fundus is upward, and the neck is downward. Passing out horizontally from the corners or horns of the uterus, which are at its base, are the two Fallopian Tubes, one on either side. These are about five inches in length and somewhat convoluted. They are true tubes, opening into the uterus, and they are about one-sixteenth of an inch in diameter along the greater part of their extent The ends farthest {2} from the uterus are fringed and funnel-shaped; and this funnel-end, called the Infundibulum or the Fimbriated Extremity, opens into the abdominal or peritoneal cavity. Near the Fimbriated Extremity of each tube is an Ovary,--an oval body about one and a half inches long by three-quarters of an inch in width. [Illustration] The Uterus and its Adnexa _F U_, Fundus or Base of the Uterus. _F T, P T_, Fallopian Tubes. On the left of the reader the Fimbriated Extremity of the tube is lifted up to show it. _O, O_, Ovaries. _B L, B L_, Broad Ligament. _R_, Rectum. _B_, Bladder. For convenience in description, each tube is divided into four parts: (1) the Uterine Portion, which is that part included in the wall of the uterus itself; it extends from the outer end of the horn into the upper angle of the uterine cavity, and its lumen is so small it will admit only a very fine probe; (2) the Isthmus, or the narrow part of the tube which lies nearest the uterus; it gradually opens into the wider part called (3) the Ampulla; (4) the Infundibulum, or the funnel-shaped end of the Ampulla. This part is fimbriated, as has been said, and one of the fimbriae--the Fimbria Ovarica--which is longer than the others, forms a shallow gutter which extends to the ovary. {3} The uterus, tubes, and ovaries lie in a septum which reaches across the pelvis from hip to hip. This septum is called the Broad Ligament. If a man's soft felt hat, of the kind called a "Fedora" hat, is held crown downward with one hand at the front and the other at the back of the rim, it will represent the pelvic cavity, and the fold along the crown of the hat coming up into this cavity is very like the Broad Ligament. As the crown is held downward, the uterus would be in the middle, its fundus upward, and, of course, altogether outside the hat, but in the crown fold. The tubes and ovaries would also be outside the hat and in the crown fold, and the fimbriated extremities would open by holes into the hat's interior. The ovum breaks through the surface of the ovary, passes, probably on a capillary layer of fluid, into the fimbriated extremity of the tube, and then is moved along slowly through the tube into the uterus. Ovulation and menstruation occur about the same time, but often one antedates the other a few days. In exceptional cases they may occur independently. If the ovum produced is not fecundated, it gradually shrivels up, and passes off through the uterus and the vagina. Fecundation of the ovum rarely occurs in the uterus, but ordinarily in the Fallopian tube, according to the general opinion of physiologists. After fecundation the ovum is pushed on into the uterus in from five to seven days, where it fastens to the wall and develops. Hyrtl (_Kollmann's Lehrbuch der Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen_, Jena, 1898) speaks of a case in which the ovum appeared to reach the uterus in three days. If the fecundated ovum is blocked or held in the Fallopian tube, the embryo grows where the ovum stops, and we have a case of Ectopic Gestation. The average time of normal human gestation is ten lunar months or forty weeks. At the moment the pronucleus of the spermatozoon fuses with the pronucleus of the ovum in the Fallopian tube and makes the segmentation nucleus, in my opinion, the soul of the child enters, and personality exists as absolutely as it does in a child after birth. It is as much a murder, as such, to unjustly destroy this microscopic fecundated ovum as it is to kill the child after birth. This is the opinion of every embryologist I have consulted on the {4} subject, with the exception of one who said he did not know when the soul enters. Technically the product of conception is called the Ovum for the first two weeks of pregnancy; during the third and fourth weeks it is called the Embryo, and after the fifth week the Foetus. During the fourth week the embryo begins to draw nourishment from the maternal blood through its umbilical vessels, but before that time it obtains nourishment by osmosis. The foetus at the end of the eighth week is about one inch in length; at the end of the fourth lunar month it is from four to six inches long, and its sex may be distinguished. At the end of twenty-four weeks, if the normal foetus is born it will attempt to breathe and to move its limbs, but it dies in a short time. At the end of twenty-eight weeks of gestation if it is born it moves its limbs freely and cries weakly. It is nearly fifteen inches in length and weighs about three pounds. Such an infant might be deemed viable, but its chances for life are extremely precarious, even in most expert hands and with the help of an incubator. At the end of thirty-two weeks of gestation a foetus if born may be raised with skilful care, but the chances are not promising. It is viable. At the end of forty weeks the child is at term. In 1876 Parry collected 500 cases of extrauterine pregnancy from medical literature, but when Tait in 1883 first operated on a case of ruptured tubal pregnancy attention was called to the subject. It was better understood as coeliotomies (opening the abdomen) became common, and in 1892 Schrenck collected 610 cases that had been reported during the preceding five years. Küstner alone has operated on 105 cases in five years. There has been much discussion among physicians as to the causes that arrest the fertilized ovum in the tube, but whatever these causes may be they do not affect the moral questions which come up in this article. There may be mechanical obstruction from peritoneal adhesions, or abnormal conditions resulting from inflammatory diseases of the tubes, ovaries, and the pelvic peritoneum, but no general cause that will explain all cases can be ascribed. {5} Tait denied the possibility of Ovarian Pregnancy, or a pregnancy where the ovum fastened to the ovary itself and developed there, but five fully established cases of this kind have been reported. Dr. J. Whitridge Williams, professor of Obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins University, in his textbook on Obstetrics (New York, 1903), collects twenty-five cases of ovarian pregnancy, where five cases are certain diagnoses, thirteen highly probable, and seven fairly probable. In these twenty-five cases ten foetuses reached full term, but four of the five certain cases ruptured at early periods. It was formerly thought that primary abdominal pregnancy is quite common; that is, that the ovum is implanted on some organ within the abdomen itself, apart from the uterine adnexa. This is now looked upon as very doubtful, and such cases are probably secondary; that is, secondary to a pre-existing tubal pregnancy which has ruptured without great maternal hemorrhage and let the foetus grow within the peritoneal cavity. The common form of extrauterine pregnancy is the Tubal Pregnancy. The ovum may be stopped in any one of the three parts of the tube, and we find Interstitial, Isthmic, or Ampullar Pregnancy. From these primary types, by rupture, secondary forms sometimes arise,--Tubo-abdominal, Tubo-ovarian, and Broad-ligament Pregnancy. The interstitial form, that is, where the ovum is arrested in that part of the tube which passes through the wall of the uterus itself, is the rarest of the tubal pregnancies. Rosenthal (_Ein Fall intranturaler Schwangerschaft. Centralbl. f. Gyn._ 1297-1305) found it in only three per centum of 1324 cases of tubal pregnancy. Some deem the Isthmic variety the commonest. Dr. Howard Kelly (_Operative Gynaecology_) says he never met a case of Interstitial or Ovarian pregnancy in his practice. The interstitial form is especially liable to rupture with suddenly fatal hemorrhage. About one-fourth of the cases of tubal pregnancy end within the first twelve weeks by rupture of the Fallopian tube. If the embryo is implanted in the interstitial end of the tube, the rupture (into the uterus, or into the abdominal cavity, or into the broad ligament) takes place later,--about the fourth month, or even considerably after that time. The reason for {6} the delay here is that the uterus grows with the foetus. If the foetus breaks into the uterus (a very rare occurrence), it is either expelled through the vagina almost immediately or it goes on like a normal pregnancy. Tait was of the opinion that every case of tubal pregnancy results in a rupture of the tube not later than the twelfth week, but this opinion is no longer held. Very rarely a tubal pregnancy goes on without rupture to full term, as in the cases reported by Williams, Saxtorph, Spiegelberg, Chiari, and a few others. Three-fourths, about seventy-eight per centum, of the cases of tubal pregnancy result in what is technically called "tubal abortion" instead of rupture. In tubal abortion the connection between the embryo and the tube-wall is broken by effusion of blood. If the separation is complete the effused blood pushes the embryo out through the fimbriated end of the tube into the abdominal cavity, and then the hemorrhage of the mother commonly ceases. Such an extrusion of the foetus is called a complete tubal abortion. If the connection between the foetus and the tube-wall is only partly severed, the ovum remains in the tube, and the maternal hemorrhage goes on. This is called incomplete tubal abortion. In incomplete tubal abortion the maternal blood may slowly trickle from the fimbriated extremity of the tube into the abdominal cavity, become encapsulated, and thus form an haematocele. If the fimbriated extremity of the tube is blocked, the blood accumulates in the tube and makes an haematosalpynx. In complete tubal abortion the foetus dies; in incomplete tubal abortion the viability might depend on the injury done the placenta, but in almost every case of even incomplete tubal abortion the foetus dies as a result of its separation from the tubal wall, or from compression after the bleeding. In cases of rupture of the tube in extrauterine pregnancy, if the foetus with its attachments is expelled from the tube into the peritoneal cavity or into the broad ligament, the embryo dies. If the foetus or embryo itself alone is expelled into the abdominal cavity and the placenta remains attached to the wall of the tube and communicates with the foetus by the umbilical cord which runs through the tear in the tube, the foetus may {7} possibly live, provided the mother does not die from hemorrhage. If the foetus goes on growing in this case, we have an abdominal pregnancy. One such case is reported by Both where a fully developed foetus was found in the abdominal cavity even lacking all its membranes, which had been left in the tube, but a foetus will not live apart from its membranes within the maternal body. When an embryo or foetus ruptures the tube and goes into the broad ligament, it may live or die according to the injury done its attachments to the tubal wall, but it ordinarily dies. Sometimes such a broad-ligament pregnancy ruptures again into the abdominal cavity. Because the bleeding is more likely to be confined within the folds of the broad ligament, the immediate danger of maternal death from hemorrhage is less in this than in other forms of rupture. Concerning tubo-abdominal pregnancy the only remark to be made is that, owing to adhesions, it is often surgically difficult to remove such a growth. If the foetus is expelled after rupture into the peritoneal cavity it dies, and if the hemorrhage does not kill the mother the dead foetus if small is absorbed; if large it becomes mummified, or it hardens into a lithopoedion, or it turns into a yellowish greasy mass called adipocere, or it putrefies. A lithopoedion may be carried for years. There are more than thirty cases reported which were carried from twenty to thirty years in the abdomen, and one case where a lithopoedion was carried for fifty years. If the foetus putrefies it causes fatal septicaemia in the mother, or a perforating abscess, unless it is successfully removed. There are various abnormalities of the uterus, and in these pregnancy resembles in effect extrauterine pregnancy. An abnormal uterus may be unicornis, didelphys, pseudodidelphys, bicornis duplex, bicornis septus, bicornis subseptus, bicornis unicollis, or bicornis unicollis with a rudimentary horn. The impregnated ovum may fasten in the rudimentary horn and be blocked there; then the usual result is rupture within the first four months, with fatal hemorrhage unless the bleeding is immediately checked by coeliotomy and ligation. {8} As to diagnosis in Ectopic Gestation, Williams (_op. cit._), one of the authorities at present on the subject, says: "A positive diagnosis is occasionally made before rupture, but in the vast majority of cases the condition escapes recognition until symptoms of collapse point to the probability of rupture or abortion. In advanced cases careful examination will usually disclose the real condition of affairs, and when full term has been passed the history is so characteristic that mistakes should hardly occur." In the _American Ecclesiastical Review_ for January, 1898 (vol. ix., n. i), Father René I. Holaind, S. J., published the answers of many physicians to six questions concerning extrauterine pregnancy. Among these physicians were Thomas Addis Emmet, Barton Cooke Hirst, Howard A. Kelly, W. T. Lusk, T. Galliard Thomas, Mordecai Price and his brother Joseph Price, William Goodell, and Lawson Tait,--all eminent authorities on this subject. The second question submitted was: "During pregnancy, at what time and by what means can a differential diagnosis be made between _intra_ and _extra-uterine_ pregnancy, and between abnormal gestation and pelvic or other tumour?" In answer to this question Dr. Emmet said: "There can be no absolute certainty as to the existence of pregnancy in any case until the pulsation of the foetal heart can be detected. [After the eighteenth or twentieth week of gestation.] . . . A diagnosis is difficult in all cases of abnormal pregnancy, but an expert can, within a reasonable degree of certainty, arrive at a knowledge of the existing conditions between the second and third month." Dr. Hirst said: "In almost all cases of advanced gestation the differential diagnosis can be made. In early cases it is not always possible unless conditions be favourable." Dr. Howard A. Kelly said: "The differential diagnosis between intra and extrauterine pregnancy can usually be made from the sixth week up to the end of pregnancy. It is more easily made from the tenth to the twelfth week on." Writing in the _American Text Book of Obstetrics_ (Philadelphia, 1896), he says: "In the atypical cases, on the contrary, a positive diagnosis is often difficult or even impossible. . . . {9} The diagnosis of ectopic gestation after the death of the foetus is largely dependent upon the clinical history; if this be deficient, the diagnosis is frequently impossible." Dr. Lusk said: ".... The frequent discovery of the dead ovum in a tube when there has been no suspicion of pregnancy shows the difficulty of a diagnosis." In his text-book (_The Science and Art of Midwifery_, New York, 1890) is this remark: "Sometimes the diagnosis can only be decided by the introduction of the sound or a finger into the uterus, the physician assuming the risk of premature labour, should he find his supposition of extrauterine pregnancy an error." This means that sometimes the diagnosis is impossible without running the risk of causing abortion of a normal uterine pregnancy. Dr. Thomas said, "After the second month the diagnosis is perfectly possible." This was also the opinion of Dr. Mordecai Price; and Dr. Joseph Price holds that the diagnosis can be made "after the third month, by exclusion." Dr. John F. Roderer, quoting Lawson Tait, says that "the diagnosis between intra and extrauterine pregnancy can not be made with certainty before rupture, nor can it be determined exactly whether an enlargement of the tube is either an ectopic pregnancy or some form of tumour." Dr. Goodell's opinion was, "A differential diagnosis can rarely be made positively at any stage of extrauterine pregnancy." The diagnosis, then, is difficult; and for the ordinary practitioner, the average physician, who does perhaps ninety-five per centum of the medical work of the world, the diagnosis is often impossible. There is no greater expert than Dr. Thomas Addis Emmet, and he says the diagnosis is difficult. Others hold that the diagnosis can be clearly made, and they speak truly as regards themselves, but ordinary skill finds the diagnosis almost impossible in many cases. Mordecai Price (_The Pennsylvania Medical Journal_, vol. viii. p. 223) in one year saw four cases which he and other physicians diagnosed as ectopic pregnancies with rupture of the tube. When the abdomen had been opened, uterine pregnancy was discovered with a ruptured tube in each case, and all the women died. {10} The first positive diagnosis of unruptured tubal pregnancy was made by Veit in 1883, and the first one made in America was by Janvrin in 1886, eight years before Father Holaind's article was written. Before 1883, only eleven years in advance of the same article, when Lawson Tait performed the first coeliotomy for the purpose of checking hemorrhage from a ruptured tubal gestation, extrauterine pregnancy was as mysterious as the old "inflammation of the bowels," which turned out afterward to be appendicitis. Hence common skill in the difficult diagnosis of ectopic gestation can not be looked for. The doctrine given in all the leading medical works at present concerning the treatment of extrauterine pregnancy is this: 1. As soon as an extrauterine pregnancy is discovered remove the foetus through an opening made in the mother's abdominal wall. Do not use electricity or the injection of poisons into the foetal sac, or the incandescent knife. Emmet and a few others approved of the use of electricity at times, but this is against the teaching of the great majority of writers at present. The reason for removing the foetus at once is that it is apt at any moment to cause rupture and fatal hemorrhage before surgical aid can be effective. 2. In a case of rupture with free hemorrhage and collapse the only operation advised is an immediate coeliotomy to stop the bleeding by ligatures. The rupture should not be approached through the vaginal wall according to the common doctrine, but through the abdominal wall. 3. If there is a rupture in which the bleeding is confined and there is no collapse, do not operate at once unless the haematocele increases steadily or shows signs of suppuration. Sometimes evacuation of the haematocele through the vaginal wall is possible. 4. In the later months of an extrauterine pregnancy, whether the case is intraligamentous or abdominal, perform coeliotomy as soon as the diagnosis has been made, and remove the foetus, because there is always danger of sudden and fatal hemorrhage before the surgeon can reach the source of the bleeding. What is to be done in a case where the surgeon is certain before operating that the foetus is {11} dead, has interest only for the physician, and it involves no moral question. Operating for extrauterine pregnancy maybe a simple coeliotomy, if any coeliotomy is really simple, but it commonly is the most dangerous operation for the mother that the gynaecologist is called upon to perform. The discussion of the moral questions that arise in cases of ectopic gestation which began in volume ix. of the _American Ecclesiastical Review_ was very valuable, but as the moralists had not full data to work on their decision as a whole is not satisfactory. The original cases presented are in part obsolete in the medical practice of to-day, and important physical conditions were not disclosed in some of the other parts of the cases. Father Holaind tentatively agreed with Father Lehmkuhl in one decision, Fathers Eschbach and Sabetti directly attacked Father Lehmkuhl's reasons, and Father Aertnys indirectly opposed Father Sabetti's chief argument. These men are all eminent authorities, but as each, except Father Holaind, was dissatisfied with the arguments advanced by the others, and as their data were incomplete, we can not rest the case on their decision. In Father Holaind's fifth question, if I understand it correctly, he seemed to think it possible to baptize a foetus through the opening in the mother's abdominal wall while it lies in the abdominal cavity before surgical removal. He mentions antiseptic precautions in the baptism, which would have no meaning if the foetus were out of the abdomen. Baptism would not be possible in that case: the priest could not get at the foetus, he ordinarily could not even see it, and certainly no surgeon would permit the attempt. There would be no time for the attempt in a rupture case, even if the foetus could be seen; and there would be no advantage gained by baptizing the foetus in the abdominal cavity where the conditions gave time to do so. If it is alive it will live long enough for baptism after removal from the abdomen, provided, of course, it is baptized immediately in the operating room. That it does not breathe is no proof of immediate death. It is not unusual for a full-term child not to breathe for even an hour or longer after birth. {12} If Father Holaind had not in view baptism within the abdominal cavity, the question has this meaning: What is the most effective method after the foetus has been removed from the abdomen to open its enveloping membranes so as to give it a chance for a life lasting long enough to allow baptism? The best method is to slit the membranes with a scalpel or scissors as quickly as possible. The envelopes, cord, and placenta are essential parts of the foetus itself, and they grow from itself, not from the mother. They take the place of the lungs and the alimentary tract, which do not come into action until after normal birth. It would be worth discussing whether a baptism on the intact foetal envelopes is valid, were it not that we may not apply probabilism in such a case. The remaining matter brought out in Father Holaind's questions will be considered in the course of this article. Before presenting the cases of ectopic gestation that occur in medical practice, the fundamental ethical principles that are to be applied in judging the morality of the surgeon's interference should be given. The morality of any action is determined, (1) by the object of the action; (2) by the circumstances that accompany the action; (3) by the end the agent had in view. 1. The term _object_ has various meanings, but here it means the deed performed in the action, the thing which the will chooses. That deed by its very nature may be good, or it may be bad, or it may be indifferent morally. In themselves to help the afflicted is a good action, to blaspheme is a bad action, to walk is an indifferent action. Some bad actions are absolutely bad, they never can become good or indifferent (blasphemy or adultery, for example); others, as stealing, are evil because of a lack of right in the agent: these may become good by acquiring the missing right. Others are evil because of the danger necessarily connected with their performance,--the danger of sin connected with them, or the unnecessary peril to life. An action to have the moral quality must be voluntary, deliberate; and mere repugnance in doing an act does not in itself make the act involuntary. 2. Circumstances sometimes, though not always, can add a {13} new element of good or evil to an action. The circumstances of an action are the agent, the object, the place in which the action is done, the means used, the end in view, the method observed in using the means, the time in which the deed is done. If a judge in his official position tells a sheriff to hang a criminal, and a private citizen gives the same command, the actions are very different morally because of the circumstances of the agent giving the command. The object--it changes the morality of the deed if a man steals a cent or a thousand dollars. The place--what might be merely a filthy action in a house might be a sacrilege in a church. The means--to support a family by labour or by thievery. The end in view--to give alms in obedience to divine command or to give them to buy votes. The method observed in using means--kindly, say, or cruelly. The time--to do manual labour on Sunday or on Monday. Some circumstances aggravate the evil in a deed, some extenuate it. Others may so colour a deed that they specify the deed, make the action some special virtue or vice. The circumstance that a murderer is the son of the man he kills specifies the deed as parricide. The end also determines the morality of an action (see St Thomas, _Sum. Theol_. I. 2., q. xviii., a. 4 and 7). Since the end is the first thing in the intention of the agent, he passes from the object wished for in the end to choosing the means for obtaining it. Without the end the means can not exist as such. There are occasions when an end is only a circumstance: for example, if it is a concomitant end. When an end is a, _finis extrinsecus operantis_, when it is in keeping with right reason or discordant thereto, it may become a determinant of morality. In every voluntary, or human, act there is an interior and an exterior act of the will, and each of these acts has its own object. The end is the proper object of the interior act of the will; the exterior object acted upon is the object of the exterior act of the will; and as this exterior act specifies the morality, so does the interior object--which is the end--specify it, and even more importantly than the exterior object does. The will uses the body as an instrument on the external {14} object, and the action of the body is connected with morality only through the will. We judge the morality of a blow, not by the physical stroke, but from the intention of the striker. The exterior object of the will is, in a way, the matter of the morality, and the interior object of the will, or the end, is the form. Aristotle (_Ethics_, lib. v., cap. 2) says: "He that steals that he may commit adultery, is, absolutely speaking, more an adulterer than a thief." The thievery is a means to the principal end, and it is this principal end that chiefly specifies or informs the action. The means used to obtain an end are very important in a consideration of the morality of an act. There are four classes of means,--the good, the bad, the indifferent, and the excusable. Good means may be absolutely good, but commonly they are liable to become vitiated by circumstances,--almsgiving is an example. Some means are bad always and inexcusable,--lying, for example. The excusable means are those which are bad, but justifiable through circumstances. To save a man's life by cutting off his leg is an excusable means. The existence of excusable means whereby some good actions are effected does not establish the assertion that the end justifies the means. The end sometimes may incriminate or sanctify indifferent means, but it does not in itself justify all means. The means, like other circumstances, are accidents of an action, but they are in an action just as much as colour is in a man. Colour is not of a man's essence, but you can not have a man without colour. The effect of an action, the result or product of an effective cause or agency, may in itself be an end or an object or a circumstance, and it has influence in the determination of morality. Sometimes an act has two effects, one good and the other bad; and that such an action be lawful it is necessary (1) that the action itself be good or indifferent; (2) that the good effect be intended and the evil effect be not intended (chosen) but only reluctantly permitted; (3) that the evil effect be not a means to secure the good effect; (4) that there be present a motive sufficiently grave to excuse or counterbalance the bad effect. {15} St. Thomas (_Sum. Theol_. 2. 2. q. 64, a. 7) Speaking of killing a man in self-defence, says: "Nihil prohibet unius actus esse duos effectus, quorum alter solum sit in intentione, alius vero sit praeter intentionem. Morales autem actus recipiunt speciem secundum id quod intenditur, non autem ab eo quod est praeter intentionem, cum sit per accidens." That an act, therefore, be morally good, or justifiable, (a) the whole train of the tendency of the will must be good; that is, (1) the object, (2) the end, (3) and the circumstances must be good; or (b) the intention should be good, and the remaining elements in the train of will-tendency are to be indifferent. That an act be morally bad it is enough that the object, the end, or the circumstances be inexcusably bad. There may be honest doubt as to the existence of evil in the circumstances or the end, and here enters the matter of probability; but apart from this, some general rules of morality that govern all cases may be formulated: 1. An intention or end which is gravely evil always makes the entire action evil and unjustifiable. 2. An intention or end which is slightly evil, if it is the entire end of an action, makes the whole action evil but not gravely evil--makes it, say, a venial sin and not a mortal sin. 3. If an intention or end which is venially evil accompanies secondarily a good intention or end, and is rather a motive than the real effective agent in attracting the will, this venial evil does not vitiate the whole goodness or righteousness of the main action. Compare the remarks made above in discussing an action that has a double effect, partly good and partly bad. 4. Circumstances that are gravely evil practically vitiate the entire action, but circumstances which are venially evil do not always vitiate the entire action. Much might be said here concerning conscience as a judge of the morality in an act, but this discussion is not necessary for our present purpose. Like other men, physicians often confuse conscience with inclination, or at best with unfounded opinion. When conscience is to be a rule of action it must {16} have at the least moral certitude; or, what is different but practically the same thing, the opinion of conscience must be at the least genuinely probable. The term "probable" is used here in a technical sense, and it will be so used throughout the remainder of this article. The doctrine of Probabilism is connected with the promulgation of law. A law, according to St. Thomas (_op. cit._ I. 2., q. 90, a. 4) is: "Ordinatio rationis ad bonum commune ab eo qui curam habet communitatis promulgata." Sometimes it is not evident whether or not a law binds in a particular case, and in such a condition, that is, in which there is question solely of the existence, interpretation, or application of a law, we may follow a probable opinion which assures us the act is licit, although the opinion which says the act is illicit may be just as probable or even more probable. This is the fundamental proposition of Probabilism, which is the doctrine especially of St. Alphonsus Liguori, but it was held centuries before his time. As the church has never condemned this doctrine, but rather tacitly approved of it, Catholics may safely follow it, and those that are not Catholics will find it very reasonable. A law which is doubtful after honest and capable investigation has not been sufficiently promulgated, and therefore it can not impose a certain obligation because it lacks an essential element of a law. When we have used such moral diligence of inquiry as the gravity of a matter calls for, but still the applicability of the law is doubtful in the action in view, the law does not bind; and what a law does not forbid it leaves open. Probabilism is not permissible when there is question of the worth of an action as compared with another, or of issues like the physical consequences of an act. If a physician knows a remedy for a disease that is certainly efficacious and another that is probably efficacious, he may not choose the probable cure, at the least in a grave illness. Probabilism has to do with the existence, interpretation, or applicability of a law, as I said, not with the differentiation of actions. The term probable means provable, not guessed at, or jumped at without reason. There must be sound reason {17} adduced to constitute probability. The doubt must be founded on a positive opinion against the existence, interpretation, or application of the law. It must be more than mere negative doubt, more than ignorance, more than vague suspicion, especially must it be more than a sentimental impression. There is a mental condition, which easily passes over into disease, wherein a man habitually can not make up his mind. This flabbiness has nothing to do with Probabilism. The opinion against a law to constitute Probabilism must be solid. It must rest upon an intrinsic reason from the nature of the case, or an extrinsic reason from authority,--always supposing the authority cited is really an authority. Many men sitting upon the supreme bench in the Court of Science and called authorities by friends and newspapers, are only fools in good company. The probability must also be comparative. What seems to be a very good reason when standing alone may be very weak when compared with a reason on the other side. When we have weighed the arguments on both sides, and we still have good reason left for standing by our opinion, our opinion is probable. The probability is, moreover, to be practical. It must have considered all the circumstances of the case. The principles presented here have been arranged, as we said, with a view toward application in judging the morality of actions that may occur in cases of ectopic gestation, and we shall apply the doctrine of probabilism in the question, does the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" bind in certain cases of ectopic pregnancy? It is also necessary to add the principles underlying our duty to preserve human life. 1. It is never lawful directly or indirectly to kill an innocent man. "Insontem et justum non occides" (Exod. xxiii. 7). An _innocent_ man is one that has not by any human act done harm to another man or to society commensurate with the loss of his life. _Directly_ means to kill either as an end, say, for revenge, or as a means toward an end. A man is a person, an intelligent being, therefore free, and autocentric; he belongs to no one except to God, who made {18} him; he is by that very fact distinguished from brutes or things which may belong to another. Now, if you kill a man, you destroy his human nature by separating his soul and body, you subordinate and sacrifice him wholly to yourself, make him entirely yours, which is unjust. Even the state has no right to kill an innocent man. A foetus in the womb, only a few hours old, is as much a human being as a man fifty years of age, and this natural law holds for the foetus as for the man. 2. It is, however, lawful _indirectly_ to kill a man provided this man is an unjust aggressor. Cardinal de Lugo (_De Just. et Jure_, 10, 149) and others hold you may even _directly_ kill an unjust aggressor. _Indirectly_ here means incidentally. An effect happens indirectly when it is neither intended as an end nor a means, but happens as a circumstance unavoidably attached to the end or means intended. We may not, however, kill an innocent man even indirectly, because no end is proportionate to the sacrifice of an innocent man's life, but the case of an unjust aggressor differs from that of an innocent man. By an unjust aggressor is meant some one that outside the due course of law threatens your life or the equivalent of your life, or the life of some one you should or may protect. You may stop such an aggressor, and if you happen to kill him while trying to stop him, there is no moral wrong involved. This aggressor may be formally or only materially unjust: he may be a normal man with a formal intention to kill you or your ward, or a murderous lunatic that tries to kill you or your ward, but he must be _unjust_ either formally or materially. It is natural for every being to maintain itself in existence, to resist destruction. This is a primary law of nature. As Father Holaind well said (_Amer. Eccl. Rev._, January, 1894): "The ethical foundation of self-defence is this: Justice requires a sort of moral equation, and if a right prevails it must be superior to the right which it holds in abeyance. At the outset both the aggressor and his intended victim have equal rights to life, but the fact of the former using his own life for the destruction of a fellow man places him in a condition of juridic inferiority with regard to the latter. If we may be {19} allowed so to express it, the moral power of the aggressor is equal to his inborn right to life, less the unrighteous use which he makes of it, whilst the moral power of the intended victim remains in its integrity and has consequently a higher juridic value. When the person assailed cannot defend himself, his right _can_ and sometimes _must_ be exercised by those who are bound in justice or charity to protect the innocent. At the dawn of human life the physician or surgeon stands as the natural protector both of the mother and of the child; he is beholden to both. "The right of self-defence is not annulled by the fact that the aggressor is irresponsible. The absence of knowledge saves him from moral guilt, but it does not alter the character of the act, considered objectively and in itself; it is yet an unjust aggression, and in the conflict, the life assailed has yet a superior juridic value. The right of killing in self-defence is not based on the ill will of the aggressor but on the illegitimate character of the aggression. Now, an aggressor is _at least materially unjust_ whenever he perpetrates an act destructive of the right of another." Mark the words "right of another," at the end of the quotation. In a case of pregnancy at term in a woman with a contracted pelvis the foetus would be a contributing instrument of death to the mother, supposing there were no artificial means of delivering her, but such a child is not an aggressor even materially unjust. The child itself is normal, it has a natural right to be where it is, it did not put itself where it is; the mother's contracting uterus crushing the child against her narrow pelvic arch is the direct agency that kills the woman, and the child is only an inert instrument used by the contracting uterus.
{'title': "Essays In Pastoral Medicine by Austin O'Malley and James J. Walsh", 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}