# The Right to Life of the Unborn Child/Medical Abortion and the Church
## I. MEDICAL ABORTION AND THE CHURCH.

BY PROF. HECTOR TREUB, M.D.
Whoever forbids, or in any way hinders another to call in, or to accept, medical aid for his ailments shall, in case death results from the illness, be punished with imprison- ment. . . . Proposed for the Penal Code.
This addition to the Penal Code is not aimed at those peculiar people, who, I am not aware out of what singular conviction, ask no medical help in their own or their family's illness. In so far as their course concerns their own lives, they are, in my opinion, perfectly free to do so, and can not be interfered with even for the good of the public health. By letting their children die through lack of medical assistance, however, they no doubt take upon themselves a criminal responsibility. Nor is this statute meant to affect the not uncommon case where doctors can not agree upon the treatment of a certain
THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE UNBORN CHILD.
case; where, e. g., the one advises an operation and another disap- proves of it. In such a contingency the patient or his guardians are free to reject the treatment under discussion.
The exact purpose of my proposed augmentation of the law may be determined from the following statement of facts :
On the 3 ist of last March I addressed to the Right Rev. Bishop Bottemann, of Haarlem, the following letter :
RIGHT REVEREND SIR: This evening I was called in consultation to Mrs. N. N., living at , treated at .
I found this woman of forty on the point of death, her face and ex- tremities were cold, her consciousness well-nigh gone, her pulse no longer perceptible. There is, of course, a sheer possibility of her surviving, but to all appearances she is doomed. Efforts to save her life are out of the question now. Such efforts could, however, have been made a week ago, and would then, in all likelihood, have been successful. Such efforts were not made then because, as I learned this evening, the woman's priest, the Rev. X., residing here, forbade the patient to consent to the treatment.
Mrs. N. having been pregnant for ten or twelve weeks has come to her present precarious condition through uncontrollable vomiting. All remedies proving unavailing, the physician who treated her, Dr. Y., pro- posed abortion as a last resort. The woman replied that her confessor had forbidden such a course. The physician talked the matter over with the priest, among other things pointing to the fact that the saving of the fetus, even only for baptism, was in either case out of the question, as it would surely die before the mother, if things were allowed to take their natural course. As a result of this conversation, the priest promised to deliberate over the subject, but finally instructed the patient that abortion could by no means be allowed.
8
MEDICAL ABORTION AND THE CHURCH.
I am aware of the tenets of the Catholic Church, which forbid the sacrifice of the unbaptized fetus, and should your Lordship wish to in- quire as to whether or not I generally strive to conform to this and other pertinent rules of the Catholic Church, satisfactory information may be obtained from the curates of the priest referred to. But I can not believe that the Catholic Church desires her teachings interpreted in the narrow way of Father X.
If the Church requires complete submission of her members to the authority of her priests, she must necessarily exact of the latter that they apply the Church's rules in a judicious manner. This is what I think Father X. failed to do in the case under discussion.
As a fact, the physician had told the priest that if abortion was not procured, the child would certainly die before the mother. Nor did Father X. in forbidding the abortion speak of saving the fetus.
So, if Mrs. N. succumbs, to-night or to-morrow, all that can be said is that her life was sacrificed, not to the precepts of the Church, but to their narrow interpretation by a priest.
I desire to lodge this complaint against Father X. for two reasons : First, that, if you coincide with my view, your Lordship may prevent the recurrence of such a sad case at the hands of Father X. or of any other priest under your jurisdiction. Secondly, that I may receive an answer from your Lordship concerning this charge, so as to know what course I must pursue hereafter in my lectures on obstetrics.
With profound respect ,
HECTOR TREUB.
Before quoting the reply received to this letter, I shall state some further facts.
Firstly,' the patient died a few hours after my visit.
Secondly, another physician, called in after the woman's death, opened her womb and removed the fetus. He is reported to have
THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE UNBORN CHILD.
said that it was still alive. As I was not present, I can not say whether or not this was so. But I have the right, and, in my opinion, the duty, to declare that his assertion conflicts with all experiences and records.
The correctness of Dr. Y.'s opinion, that by letting nature have her course, the child's life could not have been saved, not even for baptism, remains intact even after this occurrence, because excep- tions can not affect the rule.
Thirdly, I will briefly explain what I knew of the attitude of the Church in these matters, which prompted me to write this letter. I was not unaware of the long controversy between Catholic moral- ists over the question as to whether the fetus might be supposed to have first a vegetative and afterward a rational soul.* How this
* Such was Aristotle's opinion, adhered to by the scholars of the Middle
Ages, though they condemned abortion from the time of conception. It was not till 1620 that Fienus, a physician of Louvain, Belgium, published the first book of modern times that came near the truth. He maintained that the human soul was created and infused into the embryo three days after conception. Nearly forty years later, in 1658, Florentinius, a priest of a religious order, wrote a book in which he taught that the soul may be intellectual or human from the first moment of conception ; and the Pope's physician, Zachias, soon after, maintained the thesis as a certainty that the human embryo has from the very beginning a human soul. This true doc- trine, which St. Gregory of Nyssa taught as early as the fourth century, modern science claims to have proved beyond all doubt. Accordingly, in many States of the Union, the law casts its protection around an unborn infant from its first stage of ascertainable existence. " To make the criminality of abortion depend upon the fact of quickening," says Wharton and Stille's Medical Jurisprudence, " is as repugnant to sound morals as it is to en- lightened physiology." Translator's note, quotation from Rev. Coppens', S.J., Moral Principles and Medical Practice.
to
MEDICAL ABORTION AND THE CHURCH.
question was decided I know not, but, were it still an open question, then physicians, etc., could occasionally avail themselves of it to not absolutely condemn abortion. There was no certitude regarding this matter to be found in all the literature to which I had access. I was aware, however, that to the question whether craniotomy of the living child was lawful, the Holy Office had answered to an inquiry by a certain archbishop that it was unsafe to teach such practice (tuto doceri non posse). Since this answer cautiously treats the question whether craniotomy of the living child may be considered permissible, and as there is not contained in it a positive condemna- tion of the killing of the unborn fetus, I believed I was dealing with Father X.'s personal narrow interpretation.
That my impression was wrong, appears from the following reply which I received :
HAARLEM, April 3, 1901.
ESTEEMED SIR: Since your letter came to hand, I have most care- fully examined the case set forth therein, and, as a result, I am con- strained to inform you that Father X. acted agreeably to the teaching of the Catholic Church. She has always taught that abortion, as a destroying act, is never allowed. As late as 1895, Rome has issued a decision on the subject in answer to the following inquiry:*
* Titius medicuSj cum ad praegnantem graviter decumbentem vocabatur,
passim animadvertebat lethalis morbi causam aliam non subesse praeter ipsam praegnationem, hoc est foetus in utero praesentiam. Una igitur ut matrem a certa aique imminenti morte salvaret, praesto ipsi erat via, pro- curandi scilicet abortum seu foetus ejectionem. Viam hanc consueto ipse inibat, adhibitis tamen mediis et operationibus per se atque immediate quidem non ad iS tendentibus, ut in materno sinu foetum occiderent, sed solum
ii
THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE UNBORN CHILD.
"MosT HOLY FATHER: Stephen Mary Alphonsus Sonnois, Arch- bishop of Cambrai, humbly submits the following: Dr. Titius, when called to a pregnant woman, who was very ill, observed repeatedly that the only cause of her deadly disease was her pregnancy, i. e., the pres- ence of a fetus in her womb. Hence there was but one way open to him to save the patient from certain and imminent death, namely, to cause abortion. On this course he usually decided in similar cases, taking care, however, to avail himself of such remedies and operations which would not of themselves, or not immediately kill the fetus in the womb, but, on the contrary, would, if possible, deliver the child alive, although, not being able to live, it would die soon afterward. But after reading a rescript from the Holy See to the Archbishop of Cambrai, dated August 19, 1888, that it was unsafe to teach the lawfulness of any operation which might directly kill the fetus, even though such were necessary to save the mother, Dr. Titius began to doubt the lawful- ness of the surgical operation by which he had not unfrequently caused abortion to save pregnant women who were very ill.
" Therefore, in order to set his conscience at rest, Dr. T. humbly asks whether, on recurrence of the like circumstances, he may resort to the aforesaid operations.
modu ut vivus, si fieri posset, ad lucem ederetur, quamvis proxime moriturus, utpote qui immaturus omnino adhuc esset. Jam vero lectis, quac 19 Augusti 1888 Sancta Sedes ad Cameracensem Archiepiscopum rescripsit: titto doceri non posse licitam esse quamcumque operationem directe occisivam foetus, etiamsi hoc necessarium foret ad matrem salvandam, dubius haeret Titius circa liceitatem operationum cliirurgicarum, quibus non raro abortum hucusque procurabat, ut praegnantes graviter aegrotantes salvaret.
Quare ut conscientiae suae consulat supple* Titius petit utrum enunciatas operationes in repetitis dictis circumstantiis instaurare tuto possit.
Feria vu. die 24 Julii 1895.
In Congr. gen. S. R. et Un. Inquisitionis, proposita suprascripta instantia, Revmi Domini Cardinales in rebus fidei et morum Inquisitores generates, prae habito R. D. consultorum voto, respondendutn, decreverunt:
NEGATIVE juxta alia Deer eta diet sc. 28 Maji 1884 et 19 Aug. 1888.
12
MEDICAL ABORTION AND THE CHURCH.
"ROME, July 24, 1895.
" To this urgent request the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Congre- gation of the General Inquisition, after advising with the theological consultors, have decided to answer: No; according to other decrees, namely, those of May 28, 1884, and of August 19, 1888.
" Furthermore, esteemed sir, the Sacred Congregation, besides re- ferring to the decree quoted herewith, has declared that it is unlawful to cause abortion also when the woman's pelvis is so narrow that even a premature delivery is not considered possible.*
" You will, esteemed sir, readily conclude from both rescripts that I have no reason whatsoever to find fault with Father X., and that it is by no means through want of benevolence that I can not please you.
" Fully appreciating your well known conscientiousness in acting up to the prescriptions of the Church, I remain,
" Yours very respectfully,
"*C. J. M. BOTTEMANN,
" Bishop of Haarlem. " To THE HON. PROF. H. TREUB."
The purport of this letter grieved me, much as its benevolent tone pleased me. I was gratified, nevertheless, to learn that I had unjustly accused Father X. of having caused the woman's death through narrowmindedness. But as this priest's interpretation is the one binding upon all Catholic priests, and in view of their in- terference in cases of the kind described above, I should consider it a dereliction of duty on my part if I failed to bring this matter before
* Si mulieris arctitudo talis est, ut neque partus praematurus possibilis
censeatur. Cfr. Notm. Revue Theol. t. xxxi. p. 277, &
13
THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE UNBORN CHILD.
the public. For the question is, whether the Dutch legislators shall permit a body of priests at Rome to dispose in such manner of the lives of Holland's female citizens. In my judgment, this would be unworthy of the Dutch lawgiver. If he is really in earnest about the penalties imposed by law for the public health he can not allow himself to remain passive.
Should the Dutch legislator acknowledge that the law is not equally binding for all Hollanders, but that a large group of Hol- landers are justified in setting the rules of Rome above the law of the land, then the penal laws must needs be altered.
For the benefit of such as hold that I put the case too strongly, I beg leave to make the following remarks :
There can be no question of inconsiderate precipitateness, as I write about four weeks after seeing that patient. Also, since that time, I have often thought over the matter, and spoken of it with different men, doctors and laymen, Catholics and Protestants; with them I have deliberated over it, and formed a well-matured judg- ment.
My strong language is readily traceable to the deep impression which the unnecessary death of that scarcely forty-year-old woman made upon me.
I repeat, I should deem myself guilty of neglecting my duty as a reputable physician if I did not do whatever lies in my power, to make it impossible for myself or any other Dutch physician to again stand at such a death-bed a death-bed of which it may be said : There lies a young woman murdered through the narrow decrees of the Holy Office.
Needless to state that I have no desire to see a Catholic priest eventually lodged in jail. But the very fact of the possibility of such an occurrence would easily prompt the Holy Office to take into account the mind of the majority of a population of a country where perfect liberty of worship exists, yet where one does not tolerate that the prescriptions of any church shall degrade religion into a Moloch-worship which demands human victims.