Excommunicating a Nun For "Trying to Save a Life"?

There have been many stories in the Catholic and secular press about the excommunication of Sr. Margaret Mary McBride by Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix. The reason is that Sr. McBride was a member of the ethics committee of St. Joseph hospital, which decided to allow an abortion under difficult and unusual circumstances. As Bishop Olmsted's statement reads, quoting the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Institutions: "Abortion (that
is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion."

As an article in the National Catholic Reporter described it, the hospital allowed "the abortion of an 11-week-old fetus in order to save the life of a pregnant woman, a 27-year-old mother of four suffering from pulmonary hypertension. The woman was so gravely ill that doctors told her she would die if the pregnancy were not terminated."

I've read a number of articles about this incident, most of them critical of Bishop Olmsted for acting "with a swiftness and certainty that left no possibility for doubt or nuance." This week's NCR article, however, went beyond a survey of opinion, and referred to criticism from a Catholic experts (specifically quoting Redemptorist Fr. Johnstone, professor of moral theology at Catholic University, and the work of noted theologian Germain Grisez, who teaches Christian ethics at Mount St. Mary College and Seminary in Maryland). They question Bishop Olmsted's action for "its proportionality and its precipitous nature... as disproportionally harsh... as inconsistent within the framework of the application of wider Catholic law."

Lost in this, for me, was a description of the actual medical intervention that took place. I have not found this actual description anywhere, not even on the diocesan web site, which hosts a statement from the diocesan medical ethics director, as well as a question and answer page about this issue. The discussion appears to be hypothetical in nature, but does give the impression that what took place was a "Dilation and Curettage (D&C) or Dilation and Extraction (D&E)." Disclosure of the specifics could well be prohibited by medical confidentiality.

The diocesan website left the impression that there were other medical options, but I have yet to read of any specific alternative treatment that the bishop may have had in mind. It seems to me that before excommunicating someone, one should point out what else might have been done. And if our Church is concerned about scandal and our obligations to teach, the alternative should be convincingly explained. The diocesan postings were clear about what couldn't be done... but not about what could have been done.

I'm especially interested in this situation because rumor has it that Bishop Olmsted is one of the possible candidates to replace Archbishop Brunett here in Seattle, who has already reached retirement age. If that occurs, I'm sure that many Catholics in Seattle will soon hear a lot more about what happened in Phoenix!