The Ethics of Interstitial and Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancies: Four Case Studies and a Review of the Literature

Catholic bioethicists have extensively addressed extrauterine tubal pregnancies, which represent the great majority of ectopic pregnancies. However, additional management options have been developed for the other 7-10 percent of ectopic pregnancies. Using two cases of interstitial pregnancy and two cases of cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) seen at a Catholic tertiary care center, this article discusses options including expectant management, systemic methotrexate, intragestational methotrexate, intragestational potassium chloride, uterine artery embolization, dilation and curettage (D&C), vasopressin use, cornuostomy, cornual wedge resection, CSP evacuation, CSP scar excision, CSP salvage, and hysterectomy. Cornual wedge resection, vasopressin use, and CSP scar excision are morally acceptable; less clearly licit are aspiration of gestational sac contents, cornuostomy, gestational excision for CSPs, and methotrexate. Certainly illicit are any techniques leading to direct abortion such as D&Cs on live embryos or fetuses, double-balloon catheter placement, and use of potassium chloride.

An ectopic pregnancy is any pregnancy outside the uterus. These are dangerous because the pregnancy can burst out of its abnormal location and cause life-threatening internal bleeding. Most are in the part of the fallopian tube outside the uterus, but there are other types, including interstitial pregnancies (located in the part of the tube tunneling through the uterine wall) and cesarean scar pregnancies (buried in the uterine scar where the cut for a C-section was made). This article lists the ways that physicians prevent women from dying from interstitial and cesarean scar pregnancies and proposes which treatments are morally acceptable.