Are you one of those guys that thinks that women should never get an abortion under any circumstances, including to save the life of the mother?
No.
(Incidentally, neither is the strictest of Catholics.. in a sense. Though I am not Catholic.)
Because that's pretty pro-death to me.
It's better than the opposite.
(Under American law murder is unlawful killing, not what your feelings say.)
The law is a product of mankind; mankind is not a product of the law. I would generally encourage you to refrain from anything you believe to be murder, whether the law acknowledges it as such or not.
Where there is a significant disagreement in society, such as there seems to be with regards to abortion, I would caution you to temperance. That is, don't go blowing up abortion clinics or assassinating abortion doctors. But there is certainly no need to participate.
Quote from Timothy, Mimeslayer »
Doctors are in a special position where their occupation should supercede their religious beliefs.
Apparently so are bed and breakfast owners, bakeries and dating websites. If it ended where you want it to end, the societal conversation about this might have a different tone.
More Americans are New Earth Creationists (46%) than want to see abortion completely banned (20%). Both according to Gallup. Just because there is "significant" disagreement doesn't mean anything when one side is in the wrong.
In my opinion, it is wrong to let a fetus kill a pregnant woman when it was possible to prevent it. I also feel that the vast majority of Americans would side with me.
The scenario that I'm interested in -- and I agree that this may differ from what actually happened -- is where a procedure is known and agreed to be medically necessary but is still not performed because the doctor refuses on non-medical grounds.
There has never been (and never will be) a consensus that abortions are ever medically necessary, and I doubt there ever will be. Taking your other example into consideration, there might be a better argument for. However, I feel that it is ANYONES right to object to performing or undergoing a procedure for religious reasions.
But you're only taking into consideration the religious freedom of one party! Both parties in this scenario have religious freedom. The patient has as much right not to be harmed by the dictates of the doctor's religion as the doctor has the right to practice those dictates so long as they don't cause harm.
No, I'm taking both people's religious freedom into consideration. The patient has as much of a right to have an abortion as the doctor does to refuse it on religious grounds. The thing is, our government, constitution, and country operate on largely negative rights, and compelling someone to DO something they are morally opposed to is the greater offense.
Suppose you're far from home, your throat's cut, you're bleeding out, and you can't speak or otherwise communicate your preference clearly. The nearest hospital, to which the ambulance is required by law to take you as an unstable, uncommunicative patient in mortal danger, refuses to provide blood transfusions on moral grounds. You will exsanguinate without one. What then?
This is my point. It is deceptive, disingenous, and frankly dangerous for a person to label himself a "doctor" if he refuses to provide medically necessary care, it is a lie for a building to be labeled a "hospital" if it's medical staff aren't actually doctors, and it is wrong for an ambulance to involuntarily transport a person to somewhere other than a hospital.
Actually, a doctor would be anyone who passes the required exams - what they choose to do with that is, thankfully, their choice and not something we force on them. Furthermore, several hospitals are simply not equipped to do certain procedures that may be medically necessary, perhaps they have no brain surgeon on staff. If that is the case, should they too not be called hospitals? Many hopsitals are not equipped for every medically necessary circumstance, and in that case the patient goes to another location. If you aren't prepared to force every hospital to be prepared for every necessary procedure (thus forcing a huge percentage of them to go bankrupt), then this entire slanderous approach is worthless.
However this does highlight an actual issue - laws need to change on where ambulances can deliver a patient, and people need to be able to have some ability to indicate preference prior to an emergency situation. If you want the abortion/transfusion, the emergency responders should be able to know that and should take you to the closest hospital that can provide that service, or move you from the hospital that refuses to one that can. You cannot and should not force someone to act against their religious objections, regardless of what you think is right, no matter the profession.
More Americans are New Earth Creationists (46%) than want to see abortion completely banned (20%). Both according to Gallup. Just because there is "significant" disagreement doesn't mean anything when one side is in the wrong.
Er... How does any of what you posted make one side "in the wrong"?
There has never been (and never will be) a consensus that abortions are ever medically necessary, and I doubt there ever will be.
Well, that is just flat out wrong. The treatment for ectopic pregnancy is abortion. Unless you also claim that chemotherapy is not ever medically necessary since sometimes the cancer just goes away.
Er... How does any of what you posted make one side "in the wrong"?
They are wrong because they are using their beliefs to kill people.
Perhaps you didn't see my response (but then maybe you did?) -- I would recognize that it is not right to force any entity to perform an action that violates their moral and ethical standards.
What I would do in that case is work towards creating a hospital that performs that treatment, not force someone who is morally opposed to it to perform the treatment.
I am not opposing this position; certainly I would prefer to have a wide variety of secular hospitals available everywhere and the ability for injured people to have a preference 'flag' on their record that causes them to be taken to secular hospitals by emergency crews. Unfortunately, neither of these things are true.
My counter-proposal is this: you are not allowed to label your facility a "hospital," you are not allowed to call your staff "doctors," and you are not permitted to have patients delivered to you by ambulatory service, or in any way that is not strictly voluntary on the patient's part, if for any reason or in any situation you refuse to provide the best care you are able to.
If the Catholic hospitals had any form of a Monopoly you may have legit standing to say they should be forced to perform the procedures. BUT THEY DON'T.
In most states, ambulatory crews are required by law to take unstable or uncommunicative patients to the physically closest hospital that is capable of treating the condition. Unless your argument is that it is never the case that this hospital is Catholic, then they do, in effect, have a monopoly. In fact, this system means that every hospital has a de facto monopoly on its particular Voronoi cell of the diagram consisting of all hospitals.
There is nothing stopping a secular humanists (as a random example) society from raising the funding and starting a hospital.
No, but the severity of one's condition may prevent one from being taken to that hospital for treatment. When it comes to life threatening situations, you take what you get and your trauma caregiver has an effective monopoly.
We have the ability and means to kill death row inmates and use their organs to save tons of lives. Does that mean we should?
There has never been (and never will be) a consensus that abortions are ever medically necessary, and I doubt there ever will be.
Well, that is just flat out wrong. The treatment for ectopic pregnancy is abortion. Unless you also claim that chemotherapy is not ever medically necessary since sometimes the cancer just goes away.
Er... How does any of what you posted make one side "in the wrong"?
They are wrong because they are using their beliefs to kill people.
So, your point is that these Catholic doctors are using a belief system to murder people? Could you explain to us how exactly a belief system can kill someone? People who believe in something can kill someone, but the belief itself cannot inherently kill someone.
Regardless, the Do No Harm mantra goes towards the unborn child as much as it does to the mother to these people. Sorry, but that is the way some people's minds work. You and I may think its foolish (I think we both do), but as long as people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe and in the minds of these doctors performing this late-term abortion is murdering a child, how can we tell them they are wrong?
There has never been (and never will be) a consensus that abortions are ever medically necessary, and I doubt there ever will be.
Well, that is just flat out wrong. The treatment for ectopic pregnancy is abortion. Unless you also claim that chemotherapy is not ever medically necessary since sometimes the cancer just goes away.
Er... How does any of what you posted make one side "in the wrong"?
They are wrong because they are using their beliefs to kill people.
First, ectopic pregnancy isn't considered abortion. Casual googling would reveal that even the catholic church is fine with it.
Second, they would argue the same about your beliefs. It doesn't make you right and them wrong or vice versa.
Hell, in fact, according to the CCB itself, "Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child."
There has never been (and never will be) a consensus that abortions are ever medically necessary, and I doubt there ever will be. Taking your other example into consideration, there might be a better argument for.
The termination of an ectopic pregnancy is certainly enough to push all the relevant buttons by my lights, regardless of the typical exegetical and semantic wriggling that religious people feel compelled to do whenever cold reality takes a cleaver to their belief structure. It's the termination of a living person (according to that worldview) whose gestation differs from the rest of ours only by virtue of that person having attached to the birth canal a few tragic inches above where you or I did.
However, I feel that it is ANYONES right to object to performing or undergoing a procedure for religious reasions.
And I agree. However, a person who refuses to perform the duties of a doctor -- as is their right as members of free society -- should not be able to be credentialed as a doctor.
No, I'm taking both people's religious freedom into consideration. The patient has as much of a right to have an abortion as the doctor does to refuse it on religious grounds. The thing is, our government, constitution, and country operate on largely negative rights, and compelling someone to DO something they are morally opposed to is the greater offense.
As if I were arguing that someone should come in with a gun and force the doctor to do the procedure? No. I'm just saying he shouldn't be allowed to bill himself as an obstetrician or see patients who have not voluntarily agreed to deficient care in advance if he's not willing to perform the duties of that job. Then he would never run into a situation where he would be asked to terminate the life of a fetus, and those in need of procedures that result in the termination of a fetus would not have to worry about failing to receive medically necessary care.
Actually, a doctor would be anyone who passes the required exams - what they choose to do with that is, thankfully, their choice and not something we force on them.
Say what now? Even after obtaining a degree, medical doctors require enormous amounts of credentialing and said credentialing is routinely revoked by medical boards when doctors are found to be negligent or incompetent. I suggest refusal to perform one's duties as another criteria for revocation (if it isn't already.)
Furthermore, several hospitals are simply not equipped to do certain procedures that may be medically necessary, perhaps they have no brain surgeon on staff. If that is the case, should they too not be called hospitals?
No; as I said, it is only the refusal to provide care that it is possible (and medically warranted) for the doctor to provide that would merit de-credentialing on this basis. If there is an objective physical obstruction to providing the care, then that constitutes a medical rather than non-medical reason.
However this does highlight an actual issue - laws need to change on where ambulances can deliver a patient, and people need to be able to have some ability to indicate preference prior to an emergency situation. If you want the abortion/transfusion, the emergency responders should be able to know that and should take you to the closest hospital that can provide that service, or move you from the hospital that refuses to one that can.
This is certainly one potential approach to the issue. Of course this would result in religious hospitals facing negative market pressure, because self-preservation dictates a choice in favor of the hospital that can perform more potentially life-saving procedures rather than fewer. When I fill out my preferences I'm going to say "take me where I will be given complete competent care by doctors who don't refuse to perform medically necessary procedures"
Quote from SailorMoonkin »
We have the ability and means to kill death row inmates and use their organs to save tons of lives. Does that mean we should?
I don't know if such things are right or wrong in a truly sober analysis of objective morality. I expect the answer is no -- but in either case I do believe that the nearly unanimous consensus of medical ethics is that such things are not to be done, and so I would not assert that a doctor who refuses to do that is failing to provide proper care.
This is certainly one potential approach to the issue. Of course this would result in religious hospitals facing negative market pressure, because self-preservation dictates a choice in favor of the hospital that can perform more potentially life-saving procedures rather than fewer. When I fill out my preferences I'm going to say "take me where I will be given complete competent care by doctors who don't refuse to perform medically necessary procedures"
And what would be wrong with that kind of market pressure? I have no problem with Catholic hospitals going out of business because other hospitals took all their business. That's a *good* thing, because the (presumably) better organization will win, benefiting everyone (hooray capitalism).
Of course, you and I both know its not as simple as "take me where I will be given complete competant care by doctors who don't refuse to perform medically necessary procedures" -- because you would *still* be taken to the Catholic hospital if, for example, you had a broken spine. Or a gunshot wound to the shoulder. Or head trauma. Or any number of things completely unrelated to a preganncy.
On that note, I think you are underestimating the negative pressure some. My wife (and I, but mostly her since She's the one who has to deal with everything) specifically chose a Catholic hospital because we knew they wouldn't perform a "medically necessary" abortion if some complications came up and she wasn't able to communicate her desires.
I can garuntee you we aren't the only ones.
There's another note here, and that's your insistence that every doctor must be ready, able, and willing to perform every procedure allowable by law. Should a neurosurgeon not be a "doctor" because they aren't willing to perform an abortion? How about a pediatrician? A general practice doctor?
I would wager that more doctors can't perform abortions than can, and yet according to you all doctors should be able and willing to perform ALL procedures.
We have the ability and means to kill death row inmates and use their organs to save tons of lives. Does that mean we should?
I don't know if such things are right or wrong in a truly sober analysis of objective morality. I expect the answer is no -- but in either case I do believe that the nearly unanimous consensus of medical ethics is that such things are not to be done, and so I would not assert that a doctor who refuses to do that is failing to provide proper care.
And here you have an inconsistency, or at least a failure to see the issue from the other side's point of view. Because, from the CCB's point of view, this is precisely what you are asking every hospital be mandated to do.
So, your point is that these Catholic doctors are using a belief system to murder people? Could you explain to us how exactly a belief system can kill someone? People who believe in something can kill someone, but the belief itself cannot inherently kill someone.
First off, did I say murder? Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another person without justification or excuse. Don't try and pigeonhole me into using the wrong definition that the anti-choice people use.
Second, if you set up special rules based on your beliefs that leads to someone dying that would otherwise be saved, you are using your beliefs to kill people. Unless you literally thought I meant they take their beliefs, wield them in their hand and then bludgeon people with them. But if you believed that, there would be no real point ever talking with you because it is obvious that isn't what I meant and I would have to seriously question your ability to contextually understand something. It would be a real shame if I had to start writing like: ABORTION. NOT. GOOD. ABORTION. NECESSARY.
Regardless, the Do No Harm mantra goes towards the unborn child as much as it does to the mother to these people. Sorry, but that is the way some people's minds work. You and I may think its foolish (I think we both do), but as long as people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe and in the minds of these doctors performing this late-term abortion is murdering a child, how can we tell them they are wrong?
It is easy to tell them they are wrong, if the woman has a much significant higher chance of death unless they abort the fetus, even late term, then it is wrong. They are willing to risk a woman's life against her will for a fetus that will not come to term anyway. That is wrong. People use their beliefs to justify all kinds of crap, that doesn't make it inherently okay.
Quote from DokuDokuH »
First, ectopic pregnancy isn't considered abortion. Casual googling would reveal that even the catholic church is fine with it.
Wait, it is only abortion if the Catholic Church is against it?
Take 'abortion' and religion as issues out of this and instead look at it from the perspective of a hospital failing to provide a life-saving treatment because of 'ethical' guidance. Ethical guidance that encourages the withholding of life-sustaining treatments.
You can take abortion out of it but your still dealing with a life that is about to be born. Either way you turn on this specfiic case you are ending a life. I do not think there is a right answer to this. I'm not even sure if there is a pragmatic answer.
As far as a 'right' answer? You're right, there isn't. There is, however, and ethical answer. There are actually a few different ethical frameworks you could subscribe to for this case, and all of them would be 'fair', but in my opinion respecting the mother's wishes (or whoever has power of attorney for her) is the most ethical route.
What I would do in that case is work towards creating a hospital that performs that treatment, not force someone who is morally opposed to it to perform the treatment.
I actually had a second response, I'm not sure sure if you saw.
In any case, I absolutely agree that we shouldn't force any individual to perform an abortion they don't want to. But...
If the Catholic hospitals had any form of a Monopoly you may have legit standing to say they should be forced to perform the procedures. BUT THEY DON'T. There is nothing stopping a secular humanists (as a random example) society from raising the funding and starting a hospital.
Are you really suggesting 'if you don't like it, build your own'? That seems unusually simplistic for you, bLatch.
The free market model does not really apply in most aspects of healthcare in the US. It's not as simple as starting up a competing hospital across the street. Patients usually don't have much of a choice in where to go, and outside of major cities, there is usually only one hospital per county, if that.
If, for delivery, their insurance sends them to the Catholic hospital, or if EMS transports them to the Catholic hospital, but then a time-sensitive crisis occurs, there isn't time (and frankly, it isn't safe) to take them to an entire other hospital that is willing to put the health of the mother ahead of a non-viable fetus. In this particular case, I looked it up and of the four hospitals in her city, three were Mercy affiliates, and the other is a 20 bed facility that most likely doesn't have Obstetrics and probably isn't even an acute care facility, making the next closest hospital in the town south of them 45 minutes away.
Further, this issue isn't even truly about the abortion but the fact that her doctors failed to inform her of all her medical options. She wouldn't even know to go somewhere else even if she could because the medical staff decided that their religious beliefs overrode her rights. Should she be suing the Bishops? It really depends on how the organization approaches things. The article states that it IS policy in the hospital to inform patients of all their medical options. If that kind of behavior is ultimately caused by the catholic affiliation, I could see the reasoning for the lawsuit going to the Bishops rather than the hospital itself or any of the physicians. They'd have to prove, however, that the physicians didn't follow policy because of the Bishops', which is no small task and they'll probably lose.
I don't believe that hospitals should be affiliated with religious organizations if it means that the hospital as a whole won't provide a potentially life-saving medical treatment. Especially when, like Mercy, the organization does have a literal monopoly on acute care in the area.
Edit: I should note, so that you all know my position, that I'm a believer in the mind being the valuable part of a person, not the biology, which is why I don't think 'life' begins at conception. Obviously I'm heavily involved in EMS and emergency preparedness, so I'm very much a utilitarian person, although I strongly believe in quality of life over quantity, and I'm a big proponent of palliative care.
If the Catholic hospitals had any form of a Monopoly you may have legit standing to say they should be forced to perform the procedures. BUT THEY DON'T. There is nothing stopping a secular humanists (as a random example) society from raising the funding and starting a hospital.
Are you really suggesting 'if you don't like it, build your own'? That seems unusually simplistic for you, bLatch.
In a way, yes but not quite. It's more of "don't complain about only getting partial services when the alternative is getting no services". The point being, it's not the Catholic hospitals fault that nobody else is building a hospital there, so why should they be forced take on the burden associated with that?
The free market model does not really apply in most aspects of healthcare in the US. It's not as simple as starting up a competing hospital across the street. Patients usually don't have much of a choice in where to go, and outside of major cities, there is usually only one hospital per county, if that.
If, for delivery, their insurance sends them to the Catholic hospital, or if EMS transports them to the Catholic hospital, but then a time-sensitive crisis occurs, there isn't time (and frankly, it isn't safe) to take them to an entire other hospital that is willing to put the health of the mother ahead of a non-viable fetus. In this particular case, I looked it up and of the four hospitals in her city, three were Mercy affiliates, and the other is a 20 bed facility that most likely doesn't have Obstetrics and probably isn't even an acute care facility, making the next closest hospital in the town south of them 45 minutes away.
I recognize that this is an issue, but again you're not looking at the picture correctly. It's not a matter of forcing the hospitals to provide that care, it's a matter of forcing the hospitals to close. The Catholic hospital system won't suddenly shape up and start offering abortions. It will shut down its hospitals. (See Catholic Adoption Agencies in states where they are mandated to place children in Homosexual households).
Further, this issue isn't even truly about the abortion but the fact that her doctors failed to inform her of all her medical options. She wouldn't even know to go somewhere else even if she could because the medical staff decided that their religious beliefs overrode her rights. Should she be suing the Bishops? It really depends on how the organization approaches things. The article states that it IS policy in the hospital to inform patients of all their medical options. That is what got my blood boiling in my first post and why I was so aggressive about it.
This I tend to agree with, however I don't think its an issue with the Bishops here. This is an issue with the Hospitals ethics committee. It doesn't extend that high, and the lawsuit is a clear overreach. Further, if it actually is the policy of the hospital to inform patients of all their medical options, then it wouldn't even go as high as the hospital -- it would fall on the particualr Dr. that treated her.
Reaching for the bishops is purely publicity, and the fact that the hospital and the specific doctors are excluded just goes to show that this case isn't about the women, or getting redress for her.
I don't believe that hospitals should be affiliated with religious organizations if it means that the hospital as a whole won't provide a potentially life-saving medical treatment. Especially when, like Mercy, the organization does have a literal monopoly on acute care in the area.
The alternative is closing the hospital, not forcing the hospital to provide abortions. Because it won't provide them.
In a way, yes but not quite. It's more of "don't complain about only getting partial services when the alternative is getting no services". The point being, it's not the Catholic hospitals fault that nobody else is building a hospital there, so why should they be forced take on the burden associated with that?
It is the Catholic Hospital's fault that nobody else is building one. There isn't enough demand to justify an additional acute care hospital when the Catholic organization already controls three in a small city. They're literally the only game in town, and you're talking about a minimum of hundreds of millions of dollars to start a competing hospital that would most likely only lose money.
I recognize that this is an issue, but again you're not looking at the picture correctly. It's not a matter of forcing the hospitals to provide that care, it's a matter of forcing the hospitals to close. The Catholic hospital system won't suddenly shape up and start offering abortions. It will shut down its hospitals. (See Catholic Adoption Agencies in states where they are mandated to place children in Homosexual households).
There are plenty of non-Catholic organizations that will step in and take over the hospitals. Hospitals are too valuable a commodity to just shut down. If the Catholic institutions for some reason just shut down the facility and don't sell, the State will step in and most likely force the sale. But that isn't likely, as even though it's a 'Catholic' hospital system, it's still ultimately a non-profit who can't afford to hold on to let the physical building molder just to make a point.
I'm not sure how much you know about how hospital systems generally work, but hospital affiliations are like musical chairs. There are hospitals in my states who've changed affiliation or controlling company a half dozen times in the last decade.
This I tend to agree with, however I don't think its an issue with the Bishops here. This is an issue with the Hospitals ethics committee. It doesn't extend that high, and the lawsuit is a clear overreach. Further, if it actually is the policy of the hospital to inform patients of all their medical options, then it wouldn't even go as high as the hospital -- it would fall on the particualr Dr. that treated her.
That's true, Fresh Prince mentioned that earlier on and I agreed.
The alternative is closing the hospital, not forcing the hospital to provide abortions. Because it won't provide them.
As I said, being familiar with a lot of hospital organizations, the hospitals won't just 'close' in the United States. Another non-profit will step in and take over, and it's such a major issue the state would get involved and ensure the hospital continued operation. The only thing that would change is upper level management. It happens more often than you'd think, most people just don't know because it doesn't actually effect the day-to-day operaitons. It's not like Catholic Hospitals are staffed exclusively by strict Catholic adherents, it's not like Catholic hospitals are run by Nuns anymore, at least since the mid 20th century. I'd imagine at least a quarter of their staff isn't even Christian.
This I tend to agree with, however I don't think its an issue with the Bishops here. This is an issue with the Hospitals ethics committee. It doesn't extend that high, and the lawsuit is a clear overreach. Further, if it actually is the policy of the hospital to inform patients of all their medical options, then it wouldn't even go as high as the hospital -- it would fall on the particualr Dr. that treated her.
Reaching for the bishops is purely publicity, and the fact that the hospital and the specific doctors are excluded just goes to show that this case isn't about the women, or getting redress for her.
I would imagine the argument will be made that the hospital has a 'de facto' policy that contradicts the written policy and that doctors who talk to patients about abortion are penalized by their superiors. The chain would then be extended to establish that the Conference Bishops are the ones responsible for this 'de facto' policy and have enough influence over the hospitals to get it enforced. If the ACLU can establish that the doctor was acting as an agent of the Conference then they establish liability. Of course, the big question is whether they have evidence to establish this.
I assume that if the case against the Conference gets tossed, they can then still sue the hospital.
In a way, yes but not quite. It's more of "don't complain about only getting partial services when the alternative is getting no services". The point being, it's not the Catholic hospitals fault that nobody else is building a hospital there, so why should they be forced take on the burden associated with that?
It is the Catholic Hospital's fault that nobody else is building one. There isn't enough demand to justify an additional acute care hospital when the Catholic organization already controls three in a small city. They're literally the only game in town, and you're talking about a minimum of hundreds of millions of dollars to start a competing hospital that would most likely only lose money.
So, it's the Catholic Church's fault that its the only one willing to support a money losing proposition to care for people?
How?
To my knowledge, most hospitals aren't for profit entities (although I understand there are some?). It's not the Catholic Hospitals fault that nobody else is willing to do what they are doing.
As for the shutting their doors argument, you really think if the church pulled all funding and support from the hospitals it would be as easy as swapping over to a new affiliate to fix all that? Somehow I doubt it would be that easy. Hospitals would close. Hospitals that managed to stay open would have dramatically reduced capabilities because they couldn't afford the things they need for certain procedures.
It would not be "swap executives and continue business as usual".
In a way, yes but not quite. It's more of "don't complain about only getting partial services when the alternative is getting no services". The point being, it's not the Catholic hospitals fault that nobody else is building a hospital there, so why should they be forced take on the burden associated with that?
It is the Catholic Hospital's fault that nobody else is building one. There isn't enough demand to justify an additional acute care hospital when the Catholic organization already controls three in a small city. They're literally the only game in town, and you're talking about a minimum of hundreds of millions of dollars to start a competing hospital that would most likely only lose money.
So, it's the Catholic Church's fault that its the only one willing to support a money losing proposition to care for people?
How?
To my knowledge, most hospitals aren't for profit entities (although I understand there are some?). It's not the Catholic Hospitals fault that nobody else is willing to do what they are doing.
As for the shutting their doors argument, you really think if the church pulled all funding and support from the hospitals it would be as easy as swapping over to a new affiliate to fix all that? Somehow I doubt it would be that easy. Hospitals would close. Hospitals that managed to stay open would have dramatically reduced capabilities because they couldn't afford the things they need for certain procedures.
It would not be "swap executives and continue business as usual".
Hospitals are self-funded, it's the only way for a behemoth their size to work. Non-profit doesn't mean charity. If they were charities, it'd be different and you might be correct. Many even have charitable outreaches of their own, but they still bill for service. Because of that, they can only operate where there is a guarantee of enough demand to sustain operations.
Mercy has a prime location in the middle of a city of over a million people. If they were to suddenly decide to stop operating I guarantee there would be two or three organizations ready to swoop in and take over. Hospitals like that are sustainable. As long as there is money to be made* by managing the hospital, someone will want to operate them.
Of course, it's not nearly as simple as I'm saying, but I've seen hospitals change hands way too many times to believe that a non-financially motivated closure will stick.
If it were a rural area, things might be different, but a population that size will always justify a hospital.
*By 'money to be made', I don't mean a profit motivation. I mean as long as a hospital is sustainable people will want to operate it. More than likely a University system will take it over. Or a for-profit.
So, it's the Catholic Church's fault that its the only one willing to support a money losing proposition to care for people?
How?
To my knowledge, most hospitals aren't for profit entities (although I understand there are some?). It's not the Catholic Hospitals fault that nobody else is willing to do what they are doing.
As for the shutting their doors argument, you really think if the church pulled all funding and support from the hospitals it would be as easy as swapping over to a new affiliate to fix all that? Somehow I doubt it would be that easy. Hospitals would close. Hospitals that managed to stay open would have dramatically reduced capabilities because they couldn't afford the things they need for certain procedures.
It would not be "swap executives and continue business as usual".
You seem to be advancing two competing arguments. On one hand you say well it is not the catholic church's fault that no one is providing a different healthcare experience. If people really wanted a secular hospital then some group would just step in a fill that void. Then in the same post you talk about how hard it would be to take over an already built hospital.
So which is it. Is it really hard to open a hospital or not? And if it is very hard to open a hospital how can you argue that the Catholic church does not have a near monopoly of health services for this particular area?
This was on the Diane Rehm show today. The representative from the conference of bishops stated that their doctrine clearly states that everything should be done to preserve life, including terminating a pregnancy when the life of the mother is in danger and the fetus isn't viable. This would suggest that their argument will be that their policies are fine and the hospital is at fault, rather than they have a first amendment right to withhold care they find morally objectionable.
And he had to repeat this and various other parts of the doctrine throughout the show as the other guest, and several callers had numerous examples of similar incidents. Not all of them were about abortion either. One caller's horror story involved their father who had a Do No Resuscitate order, that the family and the father had made both the doctors and the hospital very aware of. The man died in the middle of the night and the hospital revived him. He spent a week unconscious in the ICU before the family was able to get the hospital to enforce the DNR.
The ACLU might have a difficult road ahead of them as the conference will blame the hospital, but when something happens once you blame the parties that did it. When something keeps happening you start looking at their bosses.
This was on the Diane Rehm show today. The representative from the conference of bishops stated that their doctrine clearly states that everything should be done to preserve life, including terminating a pregnancy when the life of the mother is in danger and the fetus isn't viable. This would suggest that their argument will be that their policies are fine and the hospital is at fault, rather than they have a first amendment right to withhold care they find morally objectionable.
However, they're quite stringent about what it means for the life of the mother to be "in danger". In this case the doctors, on the basis of their religious beliefs, did not tell her that her life was in danger or what treatment she should seek and allowed to her develop sepsis. When she returned with a potentially lethal infection they tried to turn her away. If she hadn't gone into labor at that moment they would have let her go home to die in pointless agony out of "respect" for a child that had already died due to the miscarriage.
The only argument against suing the doctors is that it makes much more sense to drag them into the streets and stone them. (Oh wait that's inappropriate because it's force. How about we just prohibit them from ever eating food again? Apparently that's more morally sound for some reason.)
You seem to be advancing two competing arguments. On one hand you say well it is not the catholic church's fault that no one is providing a different healthcare experience. If people really wanted a secular hospital then some group would just step in a fill that void. Then in the same post you talk about how hard it would be to take over an already built hospital.
So which is it. Is it really hard to open a hospital or not? And if it is very hard to open a hospital how can you argue that the Catholic church does not have a near monopoly of health services for this particular area?
1) Yes, it is really hard to open a hospital. It's expensive, and requires a lot of permits. It's not an easy thing to do.
2) I never said that if people really wanted a secular hospital some competing group could just come in and fill the void easily (or even implied that). I said, that there is nothing stopping one from doing that. And there isn't.
3) none of that is really the point of this at all. The Catholic Church is not preventing anyone else from opening a hospital in any manner. It is not the Church's fault that other groups aren't opening them.
Let me put that again: The Catholic Church is not taking any actions to prohibit or otherwise block secular hospitals from opening, and it is not the Catholic church's fault that they are not being opened..
There is nothing illegal (or even immoral) about having a monopoly if you aren't exerting monopolistic control. Which they aren't.
And he had to repeat this and various other parts of the doctrine throughout the show as the other guest, and several callers had numerous examples of similar incidents. Not all of them were about abortion either. One caller's horror story involved their father who had a Do No Resuscitate order, that the family and the father had made both the doctors and the hospital very aware of. The man died in the middle of the night and the hospital revived him. He spent a week unconscious in the ICU before the family was able to get the hospital to enforce the DNR.
Did the hospital explain why it violated the DNR? There shouldn't be anything in Catholic teaching that would encourage them to do that.
Quote from Vorthospike »
The only argument against suing the doctors is that it makes much more sense to drag them into the streets and stone them. (Oh wait that's inappropriate because it's force. How about we just prohibit them from ever eating food again? Apparently that's more morally sound for some reason.)
To enforce a prohibition against the consumption of food, you would also have to use force. So that's not analogous. It would be more like refusing to trample over an innocent person in order to get food to another starving person.
What they are saying is that they will not commit murder for the sake of murder (as an end), nor in the hopes of saving a life (as a means).
The only argument against suing the doctors is that it makes much more sense to drag them into the streets and stone them. (Oh wait that's inappropriate because it's force. How about we just prohibit them from ever eating food again? Apparently that's more morally sound for some reason.)
You are aware that she *isn't* suing the doctors, or even th hospital, right? She's *only* suing the Conference of Bishops.
To be fair bLatch - it does seem silly, but it is getting publicity.
If she's looking to send a message rather than win the suit - it does seem to better approach to go after something of larger scope to attack the message and try to change overall policy rather than just getting a payday from the suit.
But she could just be crazy and going after the wrong people too.
To be fair bLatch - it does seem silly, but it is getting publicity.
If she's looking to send a message rather than win the suit - it does seem to better approach to go after something of larger scope to attack the message and try to change overall policy rather than just getting a payday from the suit.
The thing is, everyone and their brother knows there will not be a policy change on the Church's part over this. So, the only policy to change would be state regulations. I guess they could be going for that angle.
Force changes at the state level, and let the Catholic church be the ones taking it up to SCOTUS (and thus the ones bearing the brunt of the costs).
But she could just be crazy and going after the wrong people too.
If it was just her, I'd agree. But it's the ACLU funding her. They wouldn't do that if there weren't a larger purpose to this lawsuit. Publicity si probably the biggest aspect, but there could be more to it. Maybe they genuinely htink they can take this up to SCOTUS and win. I doubt it, but maybe they think they can.
I'll give them credit, as much as I disagree with them on a lot of their stances, the ACLU isn't stupid. If they are doing this, they are doing it for a reason.
Hospitals are self-funded, it's the only way for a behemoth their size to work. Non-profit doesn't mean charity. If they were charities, it'd be different and you might be correct. Many even have charitable outreaches of their own, but they still bill for service. Because of that, they can only operate where there is a guarantee of enough demand to sustain operations.
Mercy has a prime location in the middle of a city of over a million people. If they were to suddenly decide to stop operating I guarantee there would be two or three organizations ready to swoop in and take over. Hospitals like that are sustainable. As long as there is money to be made* by managing the hospital, someone will want to operate them.
Of course, it's not nearly as simple as I'm saying, but I've seen hospitals change hands way too many times to believe that a non-financially motivated closure will stick.
If it were a rural area, things might be different, but a population that size will always justify a hospital.
*By 'money to be made', I don't mean a profit motivation. I mean as long as a hospital is sustainable people will want to operate it. More than likely a University system will take it over. Or a for-profit.
I think you are neglecting to consider the impact of all of them closing at once*. This wouldn't be one hospital shutting down, it would be hundreds. The system is not set up to absorb that many into any one place at one time.
*Probably not simultaneously but within months of each other is close enough for these purposes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No.
(Incidentally, neither is the strictest of Catholics.. in a sense. Though I am not Catholic.)
It's better than the opposite.
The law is a product of mankind; mankind is not a product of the law. I would generally encourage you to refrain from anything you believe to be murder, whether the law acknowledges it as such or not.
Where there is a significant disagreement in society, such as there seems to be with regards to abortion, I would caution you to temperance. That is, don't go blowing up abortion clinics or assassinating abortion doctors. But there is certainly no need to participate.
Apparently so are bed and breakfast owners, bakeries and dating websites. If it ended where you want it to end, the societal conversation about this might have a different tone.
In my opinion, it is wrong to let a fetus kill a pregnant woman when it was possible to prevent it. I also feel that the vast majority of Americans would side with me.
There has never been (and never will be) a consensus that abortions are ever medically necessary, and I doubt there ever will be. Taking your other example into consideration, there might be a better argument for. However, I feel that it is ANYONES right to object to performing or undergoing a procedure for religious reasions.
No, I'm taking both people's religious freedom into consideration. The patient has as much of a right to have an abortion as the doctor does to refuse it on religious grounds. The thing is, our government, constitution, and country operate on largely negative rights, and compelling someone to DO something they are morally opposed to is the greater offense.
Actually, a doctor would be anyone who passes the required exams - what they choose to do with that is, thankfully, their choice and not something we force on them. Furthermore, several hospitals are simply not equipped to do certain procedures that may be medically necessary, perhaps they have no brain surgeon on staff. If that is the case, should they too not be called hospitals? Many hopsitals are not equipped for every medically necessary circumstance, and in that case the patient goes to another location. If you aren't prepared to force every hospital to be prepared for every necessary procedure (thus forcing a huge percentage of them to go bankrupt), then this entire slanderous approach is worthless.
However this does highlight an actual issue - laws need to change on where ambulances can deliver a patient, and people need to be able to have some ability to indicate preference prior to an emergency situation. If you want the abortion/transfusion, the emergency responders should be able to know that and should take you to the closest hospital that can provide that service, or move you from the hospital that refuses to one that can. You cannot and should not force someone to act against their religious objections, regardless of what you think is right, no matter the profession.
Er... How does any of what you posted make one side "in the wrong"?
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Well, that is just flat out wrong. The treatment for ectopic pregnancy is abortion. Unless you also claim that chemotherapy is not ever medically necessary since sometimes the cancer just goes away.
They are wrong because they are using their beliefs to kill people.
We have the ability and means to kill death row inmates and use their organs to save tons of lives. Does that mean we should?
So, your point is that these Catholic doctors are using a belief system to murder people? Could you explain to us how exactly a belief system can kill someone? People who believe in something can kill someone, but the belief itself cannot inherently kill someone.
Regardless, the Do No Harm mantra goes towards the unborn child as much as it does to the mother to these people. Sorry, but that is the way some people's minds work. You and I may think its foolish (I think we both do), but as long as people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe and in the minds of these doctors performing this late-term abortion is murdering a child, how can we tell them they are wrong?
First, ectopic pregnancy isn't considered abortion. Casual googling would reveal that even the catholic church is fine with it.
Second, they would argue the same about your beliefs. It doesn't make you right and them wrong or vice versa.
Hell, in fact, according to the CCB itself, "Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child."
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
The termination of an ectopic pregnancy is certainly enough to push all the relevant buttons by my lights, regardless of the typical exegetical and semantic wriggling that religious people feel compelled to do whenever cold reality takes a cleaver to their belief structure. It's the termination of a living person (according to that worldview) whose gestation differs from the rest of ours only by virtue of that person having attached to the birth canal a few tragic inches above where you or I did.
And I agree. However, a person who refuses to perform the duties of a doctor -- as is their right as members of free society -- should not be able to be credentialed as a doctor.
As if I were arguing that someone should come in with a gun and force the doctor to do the procedure? No. I'm just saying he shouldn't be allowed to bill himself as an obstetrician or see patients who have not voluntarily agreed to deficient care in advance if he's not willing to perform the duties of that job. Then he would never run into a situation where he would be asked to terminate the life of a fetus, and those in need of procedures that result in the termination of a fetus would not have to worry about failing to receive medically necessary care.
Say what now? Even after obtaining a degree, medical doctors require enormous amounts of credentialing and said credentialing is routinely revoked by medical boards when doctors are found to be negligent or incompetent. I suggest refusal to perform one's duties as another criteria for revocation (if it isn't already.)
No; as I said, it is only the refusal to provide care that it is possible (and medically warranted) for the doctor to provide that would merit de-credentialing on this basis. If there is an objective physical obstruction to providing the care, then that constitutes a medical rather than non-medical reason.
This is certainly one potential approach to the issue. Of course this would result in religious hospitals facing negative market pressure, because self-preservation dictates a choice in favor of the hospital that can perform more potentially life-saving procedures rather than fewer. When I fill out my preferences I'm going to say "take me where I will be given complete competent care by doctors who don't refuse to perform medically necessary procedures"
I don't know if such things are right or wrong in a truly sober analysis of objective morality. I expect the answer is no -- but in either case I do believe that the nearly unanimous consensus of medical ethics is that such things are not to be done, and so I would not assert that a doctor who refuses to do that is failing to provide proper care.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
And what would be wrong with that kind of market pressure? I have no problem with Catholic hospitals going out of business because other hospitals took all their business. That's a *good* thing, because the (presumably) better organization will win, benefiting everyone (hooray capitalism).
Of course, you and I both know its not as simple as "take me where I will be given complete competant care by doctors who don't refuse to perform medically necessary procedures" -- because you would *still* be taken to the Catholic hospital if, for example, you had a broken spine. Or a gunshot wound to the shoulder. Or head trauma. Or any number of things completely unrelated to a preganncy.
On that note, I think you are underestimating the negative pressure some. My wife (and I, but mostly her since She's the one who has to deal with everything) specifically chose a Catholic hospital because we knew they wouldn't perform a "medically necessary" abortion if some complications came up and she wasn't able to communicate her desires.
I can garuntee you we aren't the only ones.
There's another note here, and that's your insistence that every doctor must be ready, able, and willing to perform every procedure allowable by law. Should a neurosurgeon not be a "doctor" because they aren't willing to perform an abortion? How about a pediatrician? A general practice doctor?
I would wager that more doctors can't perform abortions than can, and yet according to you all doctors should be able and willing to perform ALL procedures.
And here you have an inconsistency, or at least a failure to see the issue from the other side's point of view. Because, from the CCB's point of view, this is precisely what you are asking every hospital be mandated to do.
First off, did I say murder? Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another person without justification or excuse. Don't try and pigeonhole me into using the wrong definition that the anti-choice people use.
Second, if you set up special rules based on your beliefs that leads to someone dying that would otherwise be saved, you are using your beliefs to kill people. Unless you literally thought I meant they take their beliefs, wield them in their hand and then bludgeon people with them. But if you believed that, there would be no real point ever talking with you because it is obvious that isn't what I meant and I would have to seriously question your ability to contextually understand something. It would be a real shame if I had to start writing like: ABORTION. NOT. GOOD. ABORTION. NECESSARY.
It is easy to tell them they are wrong, if the woman has a much significant higher chance of death unless they abort the fetus, even late term, then it is wrong. They are willing to risk a woman's life against her will for a fetus that will not come to term anyway. That is wrong. People use their beliefs to justify all kinds of crap, that doesn't make it inherently okay.
Wait, it is only abortion if the Catholic Church is against it?
As far as a 'right' answer? You're right, there isn't. There is, however, and ethical answer. There are actually a few different ethical frameworks you could subscribe to for this case, and all of them would be 'fair', but in my opinion respecting the mother's wishes (or whoever has power of attorney for her) is the most ethical route.
I actually had a second response, I'm not sure sure if you saw.
In any case, I absolutely agree that we shouldn't force any individual to perform an abortion they don't want to. But...
Are you really suggesting 'if you don't like it, build your own'? That seems unusually simplistic for you, bLatch.
The free market model does not really apply in most aspects of healthcare in the US. It's not as simple as starting up a competing hospital across the street. Patients usually don't have much of a choice in where to go, and outside of major cities, there is usually only one hospital per county, if that.
If, for delivery, their insurance sends them to the Catholic hospital, or if EMS transports them to the Catholic hospital, but then a time-sensitive crisis occurs, there isn't time (and frankly, it isn't safe) to take them to an entire other hospital that is willing to put the health of the mother ahead of a non-viable fetus. In this particular case, I looked it up and of the four hospitals in her city, three were Mercy affiliates, and the other is a 20 bed facility that most likely doesn't have Obstetrics and probably isn't even an acute care facility, making the next closest hospital in the town south of them 45 minutes away.
Further, this issue isn't even truly about the abortion but the fact that her doctors failed to inform her of all her medical options. She wouldn't even know to go somewhere else even if she could because the medical staff decided that their religious beliefs overrode her rights. Should she be suing the Bishops? It really depends on how the organization approaches things. The article states that it IS policy in the hospital to inform patients of all their medical options. If that kind of behavior is ultimately caused by the catholic affiliation, I could see the reasoning for the lawsuit going to the Bishops rather than the hospital itself or any of the physicians. They'd have to prove, however, that the physicians didn't follow policy because of the Bishops', which is no small task and they'll probably lose.
I don't believe that hospitals should be affiliated with religious organizations if it means that the hospital as a whole won't provide a potentially life-saving medical treatment. Especially when, like Mercy, the organization does have a literal monopoly on acute care in the area.
Edit: I should note, so that you all know my position, that I'm a believer in the mind being the valuable part of a person, not the biology, which is why I don't think 'life' begins at conception. Obviously I'm heavily involved in EMS and emergency preparedness, so I'm very much a utilitarian person, although I strongly believe in quality of life over quantity, and I'm a big proponent of palliative care.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
In a way, yes but not quite. It's more of "don't complain about only getting partial services when the alternative is getting no services". The point being, it's not the Catholic hospitals fault that nobody else is building a hospital there, so why should they be forced take on the burden associated with that?
I recognize that this is an issue, but again you're not looking at the picture correctly. It's not a matter of forcing the hospitals to provide that care, it's a matter of forcing the hospitals to close. The Catholic hospital system won't suddenly shape up and start offering abortions. It will shut down its hospitals. (See Catholic Adoption Agencies in states where they are mandated to place children in Homosexual households).
This I tend to agree with, however I don't think its an issue with the Bishops here. This is an issue with the Hospitals ethics committee. It doesn't extend that high, and the lawsuit is a clear overreach. Further, if it actually is the policy of the hospital to inform patients of all their medical options, then it wouldn't even go as high as the hospital -- it would fall on the particualr Dr. that treated her.
Reaching for the bishops is purely publicity, and the fact that the hospital and the specific doctors are excluded just goes to show that this case isn't about the women, or getting redress for her.
The alternative is closing the hospital, not forcing the hospital to provide abortions. Because it won't provide them.
It is the Catholic Hospital's fault that nobody else is building one. There isn't enough demand to justify an additional acute care hospital when the Catholic organization already controls three in a small city. They're literally the only game in town, and you're talking about a minimum of hundreds of millions of dollars to start a competing hospital that would most likely only lose money.
There are plenty of non-Catholic organizations that will step in and take over the hospitals. Hospitals are too valuable a commodity to just shut down. If the Catholic institutions for some reason just shut down the facility and don't sell, the State will step in and most likely force the sale. But that isn't likely, as even though it's a 'Catholic' hospital system, it's still ultimately a non-profit who can't afford to hold on to let the physical building molder just to make a point.
I'm not sure how much you know about how hospital systems generally work, but hospital affiliations are like musical chairs. There are hospitals in my states who've changed affiliation or controlling company a half dozen times in the last decade.
That's true, Fresh Prince mentioned that earlier on and I agreed.
As I said, being familiar with a lot of hospital organizations, the hospitals won't just 'close' in the United States. Another non-profit will step in and take over, and it's such a major issue the state would get involved and ensure the hospital continued operation. The only thing that would change is upper level management. It happens more often than you'd think, most people just don't know because it doesn't actually effect the day-to-day operaitons. It's not like Catholic Hospitals are staffed exclusively by strict Catholic adherents, it's not like Catholic hospitals are run by Nuns anymore, at least since the mid 20th century. I'd imagine at least a quarter of their staff isn't even Christian.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I would imagine the argument will be made that the hospital has a 'de facto' policy that contradicts the written policy and that doctors who talk to patients about abortion are penalized by their superiors. The chain would then be extended to establish that the Conference Bishops are the ones responsible for this 'de facto' policy and have enough influence over the hospitals to get it enforced. If the ACLU can establish that the doctor was acting as an agent of the Conference then they establish liability. Of course, the big question is whether they have evidence to establish this.
I assume that if the case against the Conference gets tossed, they can then still sue the hospital.
So, it's the Catholic Church's fault that its the only one willing to support a money losing proposition to care for people?
How?
To my knowledge, most hospitals aren't for profit entities (although I understand there are some?). It's not the Catholic Hospitals fault that nobody else is willing to do what they are doing.
As for the shutting their doors argument, you really think if the church pulled all funding and support from the hospitals it would be as easy as swapping over to a new affiliate to fix all that? Somehow I doubt it would be that easy. Hospitals would close. Hospitals that managed to stay open would have dramatically reduced capabilities because they couldn't afford the things they need for certain procedures.
It would not be "swap executives and continue business as usual".
Hospitals are self-funded, it's the only way for a behemoth their size to work. Non-profit doesn't mean charity. If they were charities, it'd be different and you might be correct. Many even have charitable outreaches of their own, but they still bill for service. Because of that, they can only operate where there is a guarantee of enough demand to sustain operations.
Mercy has a prime location in the middle of a city of over a million people. If they were to suddenly decide to stop operating I guarantee there would be two or three organizations ready to swoop in and take over. Hospitals like that are sustainable. As long as there is money to be made* by managing the hospital, someone will want to operate them.
Of course, it's not nearly as simple as I'm saying, but I've seen hospitals change hands way too many times to believe that a non-financially motivated closure will stick.
If it were a rural area, things might be different, but a population that size will always justify a hospital.
*By 'money to be made', I don't mean a profit motivation. I mean as long as a hospital is sustainable people will want to operate it. More than likely a University system will take it over. Or a for-profit.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You seem to be advancing two competing arguments. On one hand you say well it is not the catholic church's fault that no one is providing a different healthcare experience. If people really wanted a secular hospital then some group would just step in a fill that void. Then in the same post you talk about how hard it would be to take over an already built hospital.
So which is it. Is it really hard to open a hospital or not? And if it is very hard to open a hospital how can you argue that the Catholic church does not have a near monopoly of health services for this particular area?
And he had to repeat this and various other parts of the doctrine throughout the show as the other guest, and several callers had numerous examples of similar incidents. Not all of them were about abortion either. One caller's horror story involved their father who had a Do No Resuscitate order, that the family and the father had made both the doctors and the hospital very aware of. The man died in the middle of the night and the hospital revived him. He spent a week unconscious in the ICU before the family was able to get the hospital to enforce the DNR.
The ACLU might have a difficult road ahead of them as the conference will blame the hospital, but when something happens once you blame the parties that did it. When something keeps happening you start looking at their bosses.
However, they're quite stringent about what it means for the life of the mother to be "in danger". In this case the doctors, on the basis of their religious beliefs, did not tell her that her life was in danger or what treatment she should seek and allowed to her develop sepsis. When she returned with a potentially lethal infection they tried to turn her away. If she hadn't gone into labor at that moment they would have let her go home to die in pointless agony out of "respect" for a child that had already died due to the miscarriage.
The only argument against suing the doctors is that it makes much more sense to drag them into the streets and stone them. (Oh wait that's inappropriate because it's force. How about we just prohibit them from ever eating food again? Apparently that's more morally sound for some reason.)
1) Yes, it is really hard to open a hospital. It's expensive, and requires a lot of permits. It's not an easy thing to do.
2) I never said that if people really wanted a secular hospital some competing group could just come in and fill the void easily (or even implied that). I said, that there is nothing stopping one from doing that. And there isn't.
3) none of that is really the point of this at all. The Catholic Church is not preventing anyone else from opening a hospital in any manner. It is not the Church's fault that other groups aren't opening them.
Let me put that again: The Catholic Church is not taking any actions to prohibit or otherwise block secular hospitals from opening, and it is not the Catholic church's fault that they are not being opened..
There is nothing illegal (or even immoral) about having a monopoly if you aren't exerting monopolistic control. Which they aren't.
Did the hospital explain why it violated the DNR? There shouldn't be anything in Catholic teaching that would encourage them to do that.
To enforce a prohibition against the consumption of food, you would also have to use force. So that's not analogous. It would be more like refusing to trample over an innocent person in order to get food to another starving person.
What they are saying is that they will not commit murder for the sake of murder (as an end), nor in the hopes of saving a life (as a means).
You are aware that she *isn't* suing the doctors, or even th hospital, right? She's *only* suing the Conference of Bishops.
If she's looking to send a message rather than win the suit - it does seem to better approach to go after something of larger scope to attack the message and try to change overall policy rather than just getting a payday from the suit.
But she could just be crazy and going after the wrong people too.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I'd like to see the allegations before commenting in the abstract.
The thing is, everyone and their brother knows there will not be a policy change on the Church's part over this. So, the only policy to change would be state regulations. I guess they could be going for that angle.
Force changes at the state level, and let the Catholic church be the ones taking it up to SCOTUS (and thus the ones bearing the brunt of the costs).
If it was just her, I'd agree. But it's the ACLU funding her. They wouldn't do that if there weren't a larger purpose to this lawsuit. Publicity si probably the biggest aspect, but there could be more to it. Maybe they genuinely htink they can take this up to SCOTUS and win. I doubt it, but maybe they think they can.
I'll give them credit, as much as I disagree with them on a lot of their stances, the ACLU isn't stupid. If they are doing this, they are doing it for a reason.
I think you are neglecting to consider the impact of all of them closing at once*. This wouldn't be one hospital shutting down, it would be hundreds. The system is not set up to absorb that many into any one place at one time.
*Probably not simultaneously but within months of each other is close enough for these purposes.