Hypothetical

[DaRkWoLf]

Yes, but was the woman in a coma for a few months? Yeah, I'm sure those 64 cells or whatever were such a burden.

After a few months, those cells definately become a burden if the host dosent want them.

This changes it from a voluntary to emergency procedure how? Yes, a prenancy can be potentially dangerous, so could a small cut. Should the hospital amputate a leg to prevent it getting infected from a scrape?

One can put vodka on a small cut, or even a large gash, and essentially neutralize chance of infection, in most cases not even needing to cover the wound. Krazy-glue works wonders all by itself on small lascerations.

One's chances from having severe complications pertaining to pregnancy are much higher than a mere cut, and theres little that one can do about an unwanted pregnancy that isnt inherantly dangerous after the window in which the morning after pill can be used. Why are you making this comparison, which is probably more distant than apples to steaks?

 

[Argent]

So you'd be okay with a hospital refusing to provide chemotherapy or radiation treatment if they said it was against their beliefs? Or is this "too bad for you for living in the wrong town, you don't get medical treatment" attitude just limited to women who need abortions or birth control?

No.

If the Jehovah's Witnesses, who don't believe in blood transfusion of any sort, opened a hospital, I wouldn't expect/require them, or demand that the state require them to do transfusions, stock blood products or open a blood bank.

If they are the only medical facility in town, then I have two options: 1) live elsewhere, which is not easy to choose, although moving around is hardly unheard of in the U.S., 2) Organize with my brethren to found a medical facility that meets our needs.

I wouldn't call for the state to march in and force the Witnesses to do as we Baptists do.

 

[Lifesaver]

No-one is under obligation to provide professional health care treatment to others.
Those who do provide society with an excellent and necessary service, even though no-one forced them to.

It is clear, thus, that we have no basis on which to demand that they provide this or that particular treatment or medicine.
If a doctor doesn't want to prescribe a pill because he thinks it immoral, it is completely within his rights to do so.

I say this not only as a Catholic who agrees with the hospital's stance on birth control. Even if this were, say, a Jehova Witness hospital who refused to make blood transfusion, while I think such a refusal absurd and the reasons for it heretical, I am not entitled to force the hospital's owners to provide such a service. If I did, this might very well drive them out of health provision altogether, and as a result we lose all the other positive and beneficial treatments which the JW hospital offered.

 

[DaRkWoLf]

No-one is under obligation to provide professional health care treatment to others.
Those who do provide society with an excellent and necessary service, even though no-one forced them to.

If Im not mistaken, once one is a certified EMT at any level, one has a responsibility to act or they become liable simply by being at a scene and doing nothing. Just throwing this out there.

While I do believe that non-emergency doctors should be able to act on moral grounds (where these specifics are known before an operation or procedure), I believe emergency doctors should have an established protocol only altered by the patients formal request.

 

[Lifesaver]

But by requiring such things, Darkwolf, you will turn many people away from offering emergency services.

A Jehova witness will likely not want to give blood transfusions.
A Catholic doctor will never agree to giving a girl, even the victim of rape, an abortion pill.

Should we prohibit them from offering their very valuable services just because we demand they also provide some other services which they would prefer not to?

 

[DaRkWoLf]

But by requiring such things, Darkwolf, you will turn many people away from offering emergency services.

A Jehova witness will likely not want to give blood transfusions.
A Catholic doctor will never agree to giving a girl, even the victim of rape, an abortion pill.

Should we prohibit them from offering their very valuable services just because we demand they also provide some other services which they would prefer not to?

Perhaps they dont belong in emergency services and instead belong in private general practice operations. Allocate anyone with the knowhow who would do it to do the "dirty work" if thats what it takes, but in emergency situations, there just isnt room for personal objections.

ER and Paramedic truly take special kinds of people.

Lets drag up another example for comparison: A soldier is trained and employed as a sniper, yet he has a personal objection that he simply cant and wont drop the hammer on a kid regardless of the situation and who was in danger; despite his useful skills and their demand, he simply dosent belong in that role.

 

[JustJack!]

Well, you've discovered a "ministry" for yourself: You can start hospitals and pharmacies in small towns to compete with those evil, selfish Christian institutions.

It's not about competeing hospitals.

It's about hospitals being a public service. It's about them getting state money. They forfiet their right to force their morals down other people when they get tax dollars.

 

[Lifesaver]

Ah yes, if we are dealing with State hospitals, I think they should not give birth control, and much less provide people with abortions (the first is up to the hospital owner, whereas the second, being murder, should be prohibited for all).

However, I am against the existence of public hospitals or public provision of health care in general.

 

[Argent]

It's about hospitals being a public service. It's about them getting state money. They forfiet their right to force their morals down other people when they get tax dollars.

Actually, you're wrong. The state agrees to reimburse public emergency rooms for the care of the uninsured and anyone who cannot pay due to the legal requirement that private hospitals with public emergency rooms treat any an all comers, regardless of ability to pay. The state has put itself into the position of having to give private hospitals tax dollars.

 

[JustJack!]

Actually, you're wrong. The state agrees to reimburse public emergency rooms for the care of the uninsured and anyone who cannot pay due to the legal requirement that private hospitals with public emergency rooms treat any an all comers, regardless of ability to pay. The state has put itself into the position of having to give private hospitals tax dollars.

Alright. Yes, and in a publicly funded emergency room, contracetion should be made available to emergency patients.

 

[Pepperoni]

There is an episode of Boston Legal that has a girl that gets raped, and gets pregnant.

She then sues the Catholic Hospital that doesnt issue birth control (in this case the morning after pill).

Knowing that Catholics do not give that kind of treatment...do you think they should have sued the hospital, or could they simply have gone elsewhere or gone and got the pill from another pharmacy?

I watch this show all the time but I can't remember how this case turned out. I think it was during Season Two and I'm pretty sure Alan Shore argued the case (for the prosecution) so I would imagine he won. And he should have won.

 

[Lynden1000]

.

People of one political persuasion don't always agree on things. You and I are both libertarians, judging from our icons, but I suspect we disagree on many, many things.

 

[JesusWalks78]

Wow this took off.

There are some here that think that a Catholic Hospital should go against its Morals. I say no, there are other options, like Catholic Hospitals not accepting potential or suspected Rape Cases, that would ensure that very one is happy.

This sort of reminded me of a little run in our Government was having with the Church regarding Education.

We have a school that trains Catholic Teachers called Corpus Christi, now the Goverment wanted to put Goverment teachers in our Catholic Schools (the Church accpted this), this meant that the graduates of the Catholic Teachers colledge had no jobs and in turn the Goverment did not want to recognise or allocate positons for the teachers that came out of Corpus Christi.....so that was when there was a problem, so the Arch Bishop said that he was going to shut down the Catholic Schools alltogether because the church did not want to break the law (by putting only Catholic Trained teachers in thier schools).

That would have meant more than 20% of the schools would be closed down, and the Goverment would have to absorb them into classes and they couldnt do that, so they finally offered jobs to the Catholic Teachers...so that their was some equality.

So here is how I see it to those who oppose the Churchs stance in this hypothetical:

1) The Catholic Hospital can say that they will not accept rape or suspected rape cases.

2) The patient can request not to go to a Catholic Hospital (or another family member).

3) The church can shut down emergency facilities in her hospitals, and many would suffer.

Which would you prefer...and seeing as the church will not back down on its belief in contraceptives, I have deliberately left out a fourth option which would have been Let the Hospital stay and force the Church to do things it considers immoral.

 

[JustJack!]

There are some here that think that a Catholic Hospital should go against its Morals. I say no, there are other options, like Catholic Hospitals not accepting potential or suspected Rape Cases, that would ensure that very one is happy.

Denying to treat rape victims just because you're afraid they might ask for BC? That's a wierd priority structure, and says more about the values of some Christians than anything a non-believer could ever say.

Preferable, the patient can go to another hospital. When that is not so, the hospital should be legally forced to stock BC to emergency rape victims. If they don't, break their will with massive fines, and million dollar lawsuits. The hospital should also be forced to pay for an abortion if the woman chooses to get one because of the negligence of the hospital.

In the end of this story, the woman was forced into getting an abortion because the hospital forced it'smorality on her. The hospital is responsible for that abortion.

Again, how can Catholics claim to be pro-life when their policies create a demand and neccesity for abortions?

And what if abortion was illegal, then the girl in our story would have had no recourse but to go though with the pregnancy and have the baby of her rapist. That would just be evil.

 

[JesusWalks78]

Denying to treat rape victims just because you're afraid they might ask for BC? That's a wierd priority structure, and says more about the values of some Christians than anything a non-believer could ever say.

Not because they are afraid, I doubt there is muchthat the Bride of Christ fears apart from God.

But because it violates their core belief on the matter, its like asking you to molest a child (I will just go ahead and assume you think it is immoral), you wouldnt do it if it violates your core beliefs would you, or you think that it is morally wrong to force you to do smething that you feel is wrong.

Preferable, the patient can go to another hospital. When that is not so, the hospital should be legally forced to stock BC to emergency rape victims. If they don't, break their will with massive fines, and million dollar lawsuits. The hospital should also be forced to pay for an abortion if the woman chooses to get one because of the negligence of the hospital.

So you would rather that the hospitals go out of commision.....think about the Catholic Hospitals around the world and the number of people that hey help in many other ways...should the rest suffer for the will of a few that can get a pill elsewhere. The morning after pill is effective up to 72 hours after the sexual encounter (I could be wrong, maybe you could verify), thats more than enough time to go down to a pharmacy and pop the pill.

In the end of this story, the woman was forced into getting an abortion because the hospital forced it'smorality on her. The hospital is responsible for that abortion.

Again, how can Catholics claim to be pro-life when their policies create a demand and neccesity for abortions?

The church did not make anyone have an abortion..and the morning after pill is a form of abortion.

And what if abortion was illegal, then the girl in our story would have had no recourse but to go though with the pregnancy and have the baby of her rapist. That would just be evil.

Will of God.

 

[JustJack!]

But because it violates their core belief on the matter, its like asking you to molest a child (I will just go ahead and assume you think it is immoral), you wouldnt do it if it violates your core beliefs would you, or you think that it is morally wrong to force you to do smething that you feel is wrong.

Giving BC may violate their morals, but I believe the patient has a right good health care, and I believe that trumps a religous institution's right to not violate their morals, because by not violating their morals, they are forcing them upon the patients, which is a more grevious situation than forcing the institution to break a rather silly moral.

I'ld compare it more to a JW hospital not giving an emergency victim blood because it is against their morals.

So you would rather that the hospitals go out of commision.....think about the Catholic Hospitals around the world and the number of people that hey help in many other ways...should the rest suffer for the will of a few that can get a pill elsewhere. The morning after pill is effective up to 72 hours after the sexual encounter (I could be wrong, maybe you could verify), thats more than enough time to go down to a pharmacy and pop the pill.

The woman in our hypothetical didn't have that option. I'm respectful of the hospital's right to not carry meds they find immoral. But in a bad situation, between a rape victim who doesn't want to be pregnant and can't go anywhere, and the hospital's morals, I have to come down for the rape victim. Anything is just a slap in the face of the rape victim.

The church did not make anyone have an abortion..and the morning after pill is a form of abortion.

They created the demand for an abortion, and they denied her the one option that could have prevented it.

The MAP is not a form of abortion. To claim so is just fallacious, and contrary to the science of pregnancy and even the very definition of the word.

Will of God.

If one is going to force a rape victim to carry to baby of her rapist, you might as well just rape her again, if she means that little, that she deserves no choice, no right to say no, if she's no more than a peice of baby-making meat.

Nonsence you may think, but you effectively are raping her again. You're raping her of her right to choose, which is exactly what a real rapist does.

 

[JesusWalks78]

Giving BC may violate their morals, but I believe the patient has a right good health care, and I believe that trumps a religous institution's right to not violate their morals, because by not violating their morals, they are forcing them upon the patients, which is a more grevious situation than forcing the institution to break a rather silly moral.

So when does one persons rights take the place of another persons rights? And yes freedom of religion is also a right.

So if we can force medical practitioners to give meds, can we also in good faith force meds down patients throats if they do not want it?

I'ld compare it more to a JW hospital not giving an emergency victim blood because it is against their morals.

I do not see a moral problem with that, the ambos would just have to be aware.

The woman in our hypothetical didn't have that option.

So you are telling me in Boston USA there was only one hospital withing three days travel (MAP is effective for 72 hours)?

I'm respectful of the hospital's right to not carry meds they find immoral. But in a bad situation, between a rape victim who doesn't want to be pregnant and can't go anywhere, and the hospital's morals, I have to come down for the rape victim. Anything is just a slap in the face of the rape victim.

]

Again dont you think that just not accepting rape victims would be a better option than forcing the church to shut down all there hospitals? I would assume there are alot more cases of Apendicitis than there are of rape.

They created the demand for an abortion, and they denied her the one option that could have prevented it.

Yet it was the girls choice to have the abortion and if she asked the fathers they would have advised against it.

The MAP is not a form of abortion. To claim so is just fallacious, and contrary to the science of pregnancy and even the very definition of the word.

It is the same at the very least as BC......that the church is also against.

If one is going to force a rape victim to carry to baby of her rapist, you might as well just rape her again, if she means that little, that she deserves no choice, no right to say no, if she's no more than a peice of baby-making meat.

Why would the church want to rape her in the first place? No one is forcing her to do anything, the church merely wont partake in what it considers immoral.....she still made the choice, not the church, and it is the rapists fault that she needed the MAP or Abortion, so I dont see how you can blame the Church.

Nonsence you may think, but you effectively are raping her again. You're raping her of her right to choose, which is exactly what a real rapist does.

Nonsence I know, She has every right to choose.....and some choices you have to go elsewhere to fulfill.

Fopr example you are in the barber, and you choose to go out and get some KFC, do you get it from the barber or do you go to the nearest outlet?

 

[RavenPoe]

Medicine and health should not be dictated by religion. A patient's rights cannot be violated by the beliefs of a medical practitioner.

If Catholic hospitals are not willing to properly treat people of all faiths based on the patient's faith, then maybe they should only treat Catholic patients. I think from now on I shall, if need arises for me to go to a hospital, not go to a Catholic one so that I may get medical care based on what's best for me and my spiritual needs.

 

[JesusWalks78]

Medicine and health should not be dictated by religion. A patient's rights cannot be violated by the beliefs of a medical practitioner.

If Catholic hospitals are not willing to properly treat people of all faiths based on the patient's faith, then maybe they should only treat Catholic patients. I think from now on I shall, if need arises for me to go to a hospital, not go to a Catholic one so that I may get medical care based on what's best for me and my spiritual needs.

I am sure that you would receive the best care from the catholic Hospital, just dont expect contraceptives.

 

[SimplyMe]

From what I remember of this episode, this is a case where the girl was unconscious at the time she was taken to the hospital, so she was not able to choose what hospital she went to. After she was there, she asked about the morning after pill and informed they would not give it to her because of the beliefs of the Catholic Church, the owner of the hospital. She was kept at the hospital for 3 days (I may be remembering incorrectly but I believe it was also inferred the hospital might have made sure to keep her until it had been more than 72 hours); once discharged she immediately attempted to get the pill but found out from her own doctor that it was too late (more than 72 hours had elapsed).

Knowing the facts of this fictional case, does it change anyones mind?

For those interested, you can read the transcript of this episode (pdf file).