Case 3. Mutilation Unlawful

Anna, a Catholic and married, because of deformity of the body is unable to bring forth offspring by the natural way. Hence the first was extracted by craniotomy, the second was brought forth alive by a Caesarean operation, and the third will come forth into the light after a short space of time; the surgeon wishes to extract it and at the same time to prevent future dangers by the operation which is called after Porro or Tait-Porro, by which the infant together with the uterus and appendages is removed by abdominal section. Anna therefore consults her confessor whether it is lawful or necessary to undergo the said operation. Hence it is asked:

1. Is a mother bound to lose temporal life in order to procure eternal salvation for her offspring?

2. Is the mutilation of a human being lawful?

3. Does Anna lawfully engage in married life?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. Is a mother bound to give her life for the eternal salvation of her child?

Yes; per se it is a general rule of charity that we must be prepared to sacrifice our temporal life for the eternal salvation of our neighbor, as St. John teaches: “We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”¹ This obligation, however, does not arise frequently, because in ordinary circumstances the necessity for doing so is not certain, nor is the expected result certain.

1 1 John iii. 16.

2. Is it lawful to mutilate a man?

No; except in so far as it is necessary to preserve the man’s life, or unless it is commanded by competent authority in punishment of crime, according to the law of the country. Otherwise as man is not the owner of his life or limbs, but the ownership of them belongs to God, man can not dispose of life or limb, because he can not dispose of what does not belong to him.

3. Does Ann lawfully lead a married life?

As she cannot bring forth children in the ordinary way it would have been better if she had never married, and even now that she is married it would be better if, by mutual consent, husband and wife abstained from marital intercourse. However, there is no strict obligation to abstain, as if children are conceived, they can absolutely be delivered either by Cesarian section, or perhaps after the seventh month by bringing on premature labor, without killing either mother or child.

4. The case. The operation of craniotomy on the first child was unlawful if the child were alive, for it is the direct killing of the innocent. Cesarian section, of course, is lawful in such cases of necessity. The operation called Tait-Porro is also lawful if it is necessary in order to save the mother's life, “provided that serious and timely provision be made, as far as possible, for both the life of the fetus and that of the mother.” If it is not necessary, and if ordinary Cesarian section would suffice, then it is unwarrantable mutilation of a human being.