Abortion and Psychosis, some clarification on my part

Below is a direct copy past from an email exchange with a friend.

From: FRIENDTo: KELLY
Subject: RE: Grey Area Sticky Abortion Question
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:28:41 +0800

Hey there Kelly,

Good on you for looking out for this girl, I’m sure she appreciates your support and listening ear right now.

 There were many questions that came to me while I was reading this scenario (see my red below). Ultimately, I think this girl needs professional help in two areas. One area is ethical advice, which really ought to go to someone more experienced and qualified. I think bioethics in the Archdiocese is Fr Joe Parkinson’s responsibility? Bronia at the RLO could also advise you on who could help. I’d recommend you get in touch with either of these asap.

 The other area of professional help this girl needs is counselling with regards to coming to terms with her pregnancy. I think she may be thinking that abortion is the least bad of the options she is facing. Pregnancy Assistance might be able to help. Bronia at the RLO might also be able to advise you what to do on this. This girl may also need counselling in general for just being in this complicated situation.

 How does this sit with you?

 I’ll keep this matter in my prayers.

 God bless,

FRIEND

  

I've a friend, whom I met in hospital, who is allergic to oestrogen. Which is unfortunate because she has XX Chromosomes, as I do. Her reaction to estrogen day to day is severe depressive episodes.
We met in hospital because she'd started taking oestrogen based contraception and it had triggered a suicidal psychosis. If her fiance hadn't unexpectedly come home two hours early to find her unusually calm, she would be dead. That was around 2x her normal day-to-day levels.

This friend is now worried that she's pregnant. Oestrogen levels by the end of pregnancy are, apparently, about 1000x that of day-to-day levels. She's extremely resourceful and, during her psychoses, can be very deceptive about how bad things actually are. At anything more that 2x her normal levels of oestrogen, she will find a way to kill herself. If she is pregnant then wont her oestrogen levels have already risen significantly? They go up relatively quick I thought.

The Church teaches, through the principle of double effect, that she can continue and increase treatment for her mental illness during pregnancy, even to the detriment of the child. Sounds like the principle of double effect, but before definitively concluding on this difficult situation I’d get another opinion from someone more experienced in ethics. Has this girl already seen an ethicist at the hospital? She could take some oestrogen-blocking therapy, even if it kills the child.

The child could, however, survive to or past around 20 weeks when both pain and viability-outside-the-womb become a possibility I’m not sure if you could block oestrogen AND get to 20 weeks pregnant – more likely to miscarry early in the pregnancy if the hormones are not at healthy levels? If the child is born, at whatever stage after that, there is a high likelihood of terrible suffering for them. It is unlikely that the child will survive long after birth, if at all. What does she mean by that? Is it a health issue or something else… 

She could, of course, not continue or receive more treatment. That decision would depend on her mental health doctors wouldn’t it? I don’t know a lot about her psychotic-suicidal reaction to oestrogen. What if she just went under 24hr surveillance? Her husband could take leave and care for her?

Meanwhile, even a week of high levels of estrogen - much more for if it's 40 weeks - and this friend is likely dead; almost certainly.

Her question to me: How is killing the embryo, foetus, child slowly, possible over 9 or 10 months, more ethical than a direct abortion? My intention in either case is to stop in estrogen and the result in either case is the thing dying?

I’m not sure how the child could die slowly over 9 or 10 months. If she blocks the oestrogen then I can’t see how she could bring the child to full term.

If the child was born, is this girl thinking of killing the child?

I appreciate her lose-lose situation, but we both know abortion leads to further suffering.

She needs counselling with regard to her difficult situation. Pregnancy Assistance?

My question to you: How should I answer?


EDIT to clarify: I use allergy somewhat allegorically.
She has BPD and has a psychotic-suicidal reaction to estrogen. 
My assumptions, the 'givens,' are based on my close knowledge of her and her condition.
Also, yes, she could continue with BPD therapy; the resulting death or injuries to the child are of the same likelihood.
And, she uses a utilitarian prism for her moral compass:
"Greatest good for the greatest number," while believing that "There is some suffering worse than death."

*   ***   ***   ***   *

From: KELLY
Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013 10:30 PM
To: FRIEND
Subject: RE: Grey Area Sticky Abortion Question

Thank you, FRIEND. You raise some great questions.

I've been in contact with both RLO and PA.
I'm hoping to hear back from both tomorrow.

Alas, this woman is suspicious of anyone clearly on either 'side' of the 'abortion fence,' so to speak.
This means that the likelihood of her speaking to someone other than me or Fr Giles (whom she met while we were in hospital) is quite low.

Now, to your questions:

If she is pregnant then wont her oestrogen levels have already risen significantly? They go up relatively quick I thought.Yes. That's why she's worried that she's pregnant. It's been about a week and she's noticed a huge increase in her depression and the first symptoms of psychosis.

Sounds like the principle of double effect, but before definitively concluding on this difficult situation I’d get another opinion from someone more experienced in ethics. Has this girl already seen an ethicist at the hospital?This is part of my reason for contacting RLO.

Although we probably could have asked to have seen an ethicist in hospital, it's not really high on a mental-health patients list-of-professionals-to-see.

  I’m not sure if you could block oestrogen AND get to 20 weeks pregnant – more likely to miscarry early in the pregnancy if the hormones are not at healthy levels?Probably can't.

But she also has the option of continuing her current medication without taking the oestrogen blocker-thing which would severely harm the child.

What does she mean by that? Is it a health issue or something else… Health of the child in regard to the effects of the medication/s she'd be taking during pregnancy.

 That decision would depend on her mental health doctors wouldn’t it? I don’t know a lot about her psychotic-suicidal reaction to oestrogen. What if she just went under 24hr surveillance? Her husband could take leave and care for her?  Well, kind of. Under the Mental Health Act, you have the right to refuse treatment.

The only type of supervision that might work is being in a Locked Ward for the duration of the oestrogen spike.

She'd probably have to be literally tied down: it's the curse of being a high functioning mental health patient that, once you've decided that you need to die, nothing but physically preventing you from acting will stop you. 

 I’m not sure how the child could die slowly over 9 or 10 months. If she blocks the oestrogen then I can’t see how she could bring the child to full term.If the child was born, is this girl thinking of killing the child?I appreciate her lose-lose situation, but we both know abortion leads to further suffering. She needs counselling with regard to her difficult situation. Pregnancy Assistance?

 As above, probably not. 9 months in the womb, maybe a month outside.She has not intention of killing a live-born child.It does, but so does several months of phychosis. 

I will continue trying to chase (up or down) any help I can get for her.

 Thank you, again, for your help and - more especially - for your prayers.

 You remain in my prayers, too.

 -Kelly

Abortion and Psychosis, A question

I've a friend, whom I met in hospital, who is allergic to oestrogen. Which is unfortunate because she has XX Chromosomes, as I do. Her reaction to estrogen day to day is severe depressive episodes.
We met in hospital because she'd started taking oestrogen based contraception and it had triggered a suicidal psychosis. If her fiance hadn't unexpectedly come home two hours early to find her unusually calm, she would be dead. That was around 2x her normal day-to-day levels.

This friend is now worried that she's pregnant. Oestrogen levels by the end of pregnancy are, apparently, about 1000x that of day-to-day levels. She's extremely resourceful and, during her psychoses, can be very deceptive about how bad things actually are. At anything more that 2x her normal levels of oestrogen, she will find a way to kill herself.

The Church teaches, through the principle of double effect, that she can continue and increase treatment for her mental illness during pregnancy, even to the detriment of the child. She could take some oestrogen-blocking therapy, even if it kills the child.
The child could, however, survive to or past around 20 weeks when both pain and viability-outside-the-womb become a possibility. If the child is born, at whatever stage after that, there is a high likelihood of terrible suffering for them. It is unlikely that the child will survive long after birth, if at all.

She could, of course, not continue or receive more treatment.

Meanwhile, even a week of high levels of estrogen - much more for if it's 40 weeks - and this friend is likely dead; almost certainly.

Her question to me: How is killing the embryo, foetus, child slowly, possible over 9 or 10 months, more ethical than a direct abortion? My intention in either case is to stop in estrogen and the result in either case is the thing dying?

My question to you: How should I answer?



EDIT to clarify:
 I use allergy somewhat allegorically.
She has BPD and has a psychotic-suicidal reaction to estrogen. 
My assumptions, the 'givens,' are based on my close knowledge of her and her condition.
Also, yes, she could continue with BPD therapy; the resulting death or injuries to the child are of the same likelihood.
And, she uses a utilitarian prism for her moral compass:
"Greatest good for the greatest number," while believing that "There is some suffering worse than death."

Imagine

that you know who you want to marry;
that you desire nothing else.

But that you can't marry him just yet.

And then, as part of your waiting, imagine that you're plagued with thoughts as to whether he really wants you to marry him.

Welcome to my life.


Oh Sacred Heart, draw me closer to Yourself.
Purify me; purify my desires.
Allow me to submit myself entirely to You;
To Your Will.
Amen.

Writing.

I havn't written here in a long time.
The poems I've posted have been written for other purposes.


This, however, is a vain attempt at writing something, different.

Stuff it. That's not going to work.
I can not currently put what I'm thinking or feeling into sentences and paragraphs.
That's why my tumblog has been overused of late.

I want to write something that is at once meaningful and universal.
I want to write something that is at once interesting and personal.
I want to write something that is at once poigniant and popular.

I want to write something at once.

The Literal Wealth of the Catholic Church

I was asked over on my tumblr the follow question. My response is posted below.

Let me tell you a story.
There once was this Italian guy called Lorenzo (or, in English, Lawrence) who lived in Rome and happened to be a Catholic. Now, this was back in the day when it was unpopular to be Catholic - much less a practicing one - in Rome. What was more, he worked for the Church.
The dude in charge of Rome at the time, a man called Valerian demanded that Lorenzo bring him all the riches of the Church - something he’d been made aware that our friend could do for him. He also demanded that Lorenzo give up the True Faith or die in the same way that seven of his friends did four days before.
So Lorenzo rocked up for his execution accompanied by all of Rome’s poor, crippled, diseased, blind and undignified people.

Another story for you: there once was this great King who decided to visit is subjects. He wasn’t particularly well received, so they did what they could to send him away.
However, in three days, he returned again and has never left his people since.
He is the source and summit of their life.
He dwells in his tent in every one of his palaces on Earth at all times.
His name means God-will-save and he is called God-with-us.
You probably know him as Jesus.
His dwelling place is usually called a Tabernacle and it is here that He reposes, loving His people and waiting for their love so that He can shower on them gifts that we call graces.
The poor that St Lawrence brought to the Emperor Valerian are the Face of Christ, who said that in being kind to the poor, the outcast and the downtrodden, we were being kind to Him: “Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.” (source)
The Eucharist and the least among us are the literal wealth of the Catholic Church.

Do they weigh on my conscience? Yes.
I do not have a great love for either of them, though I very much desire to.
I have a feeling, anon, that what you meant was “Does the material wealth of the Catholic Church weigh on your conscience?”
I’ve a question for you in return. And the answer to that question.
Do you know what the entire art collection of the Holy See is insured for?
It’s not.
Do you know how much the Vatican values each of the art pieces for accounting purposes?
One Euro.
The value of the art and architecture of the Catholic Church is not found in it’s material worth. It is found in its ability to lead people to God, and to worship Him.
tl;dr
The literal wealth of the Catholic Church is Christ Himself.
The material wealth of the Church only has value insofar as it points to the first.

A Pro-Life Defense of Truth, by sword-meets-rose

Pro-life advocates argue that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. In support of this conclusion, pro-lifers cite both scientific and philosophic evidence. Nonetheless, some people ignore the evidence pro-life advocates present and argue for abortion based on self-interest. That is the lazy way out. If we care about truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead. But there are pitfalls. Here are five common mistakes people make arguing for abortion

Mistake #1: Confuse objective claims with subjective ones (or confuse claims about ice cream with claims about truth).

When pro-life advocates say that abortion is morally wrong because it takes the life of a defenseless child, they are making a particular type of claim. Specifically, they are making a moral claim about the rightness or wrongness of abortion.

Many people, however, misconstrue the kind of claim the pro-lifer is making in order to respond to one they like better. Consider the following responses to the statement, Abortion is morally wrong.

• “That’s just your view.”

[...]

• “Don’t force your morality on me.”

[...]

1) Relativism is self-refuting—it commits intellectual suicide. [...]

2) It is impossible for a moral relativist to say that anything is wrong, including intolerance. [...]

3) It is impossible to live as a moral relativist.
[...]

• “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I still think it should be legal.”

[...]

Mistake #2: Attack the person rather than refute the argument. (Ad hominem fallacy)
[...]

Mistake #3 : Assume what you are trying to prove.

[...]

Mistake #4: Confuse functioning as a person with being a person.


[...]

Mistake #5: Disguise your true position by appealing to the hard cases.

[...]

VI. Summary and Conclusion:

[...]

The whole thing is availiable here.
(source and author)

How long, oh Lord? How long?

Have you ever had the feeling of your heart been torn, very slowly, both out of your chest and into pieces?
Have you ever wanted to give a complete stranger a bear-hug and tell them that everything's alright and that they don't have to go through their pain anymore?
Have you ever wanted to cry, but not had the tears?
Have you ever asked God to allow you to suffer some horrible fate, rather than allow an injustice to occur?
Have you ever wondered what type of good He must be bringing out of a great evil, while thanking Him for that good?
Have you ever wanted to run away screaming, yet found yourself unable to tear yourself away?
Have you ever gone to speak, but no sound would come out of your mouth?
Have you ever wondered what their pain is like, and wished you could take it away?
Have you ever longed for them to stop, and been unable to show them why they ought to?

How do you say "I love you and I want the best for you" to people who don't want you to speak to them?
How do you piece your heart back together after the one you've loved has been torn apart?
How do you continue to get up in the morning, when the whole world seems to be against the love you long to show?
How do you give to the next person, when you've emptied yourself entirely for this one?
How do you explain what drives you to do it over and over and over again?
How do you explain why you are there and how you can stay there all day, without others around?








I just sat down to blog about today's experience of praying and side-walk counselling, but I don't know where to start or what to say. These are my questions.

Missing Book

So I recently realised that I'm missing my book which contains all of George Orwell's novels.
Aparently it's not at mum's.
And it's not at mine.
Does anyone have any idea where it could have got to?

Love

What is it?
Is love "diligo"? or "caritas"?
Or is it "amour"?

Dear Reader,
What is love to you? What does it entail? Is it strictly passionate? Or does it involve compassion?

Can you love someone you've never met?

Can you love someone you have?

Tell me, Reader, what you think.