Is a church's role in healthcare dangerous and inappropriate?

A-lot of talk going on about the the governments' inappropriate mandates on insurance coverage. However let's look at another fundamental issue that's going on: the role of the Catholic church in healthcare and it's influence over healthcare policy.

The Seattle Times has written an article I think brings up some extremely vital points :

1

“consolidations and mergers have resulted in a situation in which nearly 18 percent of all hospitals and 20 percent of all hospital beds in health systems nationwide are owned or controlled by the Catholic Church. In some isolated areas, the only hospitals available are Catholic-run.”

2

“Catholic churches also claim the right to make decisions based on religious conviction, even when employees are not Catholic, and when a large share of their salaries are paid for by tax dollars that flow through broad-based medical programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.”

3

In a perfect world, patients would have full knowledge of whether the system they choose is compatible with their religious experience and beliefs. But in practice, this doesn't happen. Hospitals and care providers aren't required to disclose anything about their religious preferences, and so patients and families have to make decisions, often in traumatic or even life-or-death situations, without knowing anything about which religious preferences will guide their care

I find this scary as Catholic run facilities accelerate not only in power, but in quantity of healthcare facilities. I don't know that I would go so far as to say it's a conspiracy to push an agenda, but I will throw that out there for debate. There does need to be laws set in place when it comes to churches and religious organizations running healthcare facilities weather or not they like it.

Since when does a facility get to accept federal money and turn around and say it doesn't have to comply with the laws that come with it?


Back to the Catholics stance on contraceptives it is Noteworthy that 28 States have enacted the Contraception Equality ACT
under Discrimination principles.
It is also noteworthy that many Catholic organizations Already use health plans that cover contraceptives and simply refuse to write prescriptions.www.datalounge.com...:showThread,11071548


I'll wrap this up by re-posting my comment that I prematurely spout off in an inappropriate thread.

The real question of authority here is what is ethical and moral on the behalf of the patient . Jehovah witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions...would it be ethical to grant These churches an exemption from covering this procedure on religious grounds? Of course not. Is it the patients choice to refuse the procedure ; absolutely. Now let's take a patient with auto-immune disease with high risk of pre-clampsia that could result in a life threatening pregnancy : is it ethical to deny coverage for contraceptive ..no I believe that it is highly unethical and immoral to practice medicine that is not in the best interest of patients , due to unproven claims outside the realm of evidence based practice. The church does not have the ultimate authority to make outlandish claims and apply them to medical practices when it results in patient harm. I believe in the separation of church and state , I do, but when the church takes decisions out of the hands of individuals an appoints itself the moral authority on what is good for the majority even though it is harmful ...I don't believe anyone can rationally defend that.

I see no difference between church and state they each are mechanism of control.

EDIT: Second line and a bit of fill.

I would much rather someone who has at least studied some sort of spiritual texts and is able to recognise a human being not a wallet to make judgements on my behalf than someone who grew with nothing more than a capitalist view and the misnomer of "Survival of the fittest" But then again I would not be so quick to hand responsibility to another something more should do.

Originally posted by usernamehere
I see no difference between church and state they each are mechanism of control.

EDIT: Second line and a bit of fill.

I would much rather someone who has at least studied some sort of spiritual texts and is able to recognise a human being not a wallet to make judgements on my behalf than someone who grew with nothing more than a capitalist view and the misnomer of "Survival of the fittest" But then again I would not be so quick to hand responsibility to another something more should do.

edit on 16-2-2012 by usernamehere because: (no reason given)

Neither church nor state fulfill this desire, and so neither should have rule over one's right to be free.

reply to post by usernamehere


So it's acceptable to you for a healthcare facility to take mandates (in this case ) from a Bishop or other religious leader who has no medical training? I'm not defending our healthcare system in it's entirety , I know it's failing . However anyone on surgery table wants a Doctor to treat and the Bishop to pray ...not the other way around.

reply to post by paleorchid13


As I've stated numerous times. . .

It's a 1st Ammendment issue.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

en.wikipedia.org...

The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion,

It's not a church issue.
It's not a catholic issue.
It's an issue where the Obama administration is trying to violate the 1st Ammendment.

Want to talk catholic conspiracies?
Great!
Want to talk about religious issue?
Fantastic!

But (in my humble opinion) it is a 1st Ammendment issue and focus needs to be maintained on that.

reply to post by beezzer


I understand that , but I am talking about role reversal here ; the Catholic Church effecting policy and the concerns of them running healthcare facilities with the "right" of prejudice so to speak. The last part is more of a social question and how this effects people.

The church is one thing. But does a hospital qualify as a religious institution?

reply to post by paleorchid13


The only thing the bishops can mandate is there decision to hang a "Closed" sign on their facilities if they chose to practice what they preach and not accept the governments healthcare mandates forcing them to provide contraceptive coverage.

reply to post by paleorchid13
On THAT topic, the Supreme Court ruled last month that religious facilities can discriminate on the basis of belief.

It's a constitutional issue.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


I agree, hence the following: "But then again I would not be so quick to hand responsibility to another"

reply to post by paleorchid13


No I do not believe we need either of them, but for the moment it's accepted.

reply to post by beezzer


most interesting.

I'll share something on this topic.... I've had and still have family being treated in both Catholic and Corporate Hospitals. They both charge outrageous amounts...they both are a pain in the butt to deal with and neither type really stands as a place I want to spend a moment more of my time than I have to.

Having said that much? If I'm sick and have a choice of a Corporate hospital 20 minutes away or a Catholic one an hour away, I'm telling the ambulance driver to get comfy for a long drive. The difference I've seen from personal experience is that inside the Catholic system (St Johns..now Mercy...in Missouri to be specific) the feeling is that they CARE and it actually bothers them if things go badly. The attention and care of little teams coming into the room every 15-30 minutes...24 hours a day..NON-STOP to check meds, stats and patient well being is something the Corp hospital experience can't even hold a dim candle to.

I don't know about the whole question of appropriate. That's above my level of concerns...but it doesn't matter a bit that I'm not Catholic. I'll trust them with my life, with comfort. The other? I'm watching every SINGLE thing they do with a loved one...because the whole feel is different and they seem to care less either way, as long as a bad outcome isn't THEIR fault.

reply to post by beezzer

Does a Hospital qualify as a religious institution or more likely ..should it? I see that as a conflict of interest.

I'm sick of the religious nuts sticking their nose in Healthcare and I'm equally sick of Government sticking it's nose in religious affairs.

Nutcases all around.

It's absolutely 100% disgusting and unwanted by people that appreciate reality.

Originally posted by paleorchid13
reply to post by beezzer

 

Does a Hospital qualify as a religious institution or more likely ..should it? I see that as a conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest because now the government is in the healthcare business, that seems to be overstepping their (the government's) authority.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I'm happy that you have a hospital you feel has well qualified , caring staff . I wish all hospitals were that way.
I agree with you our healthcare system is broken and there are already many things I can't stand about it still being a student.

However, some people may have the oppsotie feelings about other religious affiliated hospitals that refuse to meet their needs.

Originally posted by paleorchid13
reply to post by beezzer

 

Does a Hospital qualify as a religious institution or more likely ..should it? I see that as a conflict of interest.

NO.

Those that think this is right - - do you also think its right for a cab driver to not let you in a cab with a bottle of wine because of his religion?

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


Yes, a politician who has no medical training is as dangerous as a religious person who has no medical training mandating medicine. However , the government does have the right to step in to protect it's citizens and mandate that the medical profession be left up to medical professionals.



I have to laugh , because as I'm writing this I realize that many of the medical professionals are just as backwards as the politicians, and the Catholic Church is up to it's eyeballs in scandal. Good grief .

Originally posted by paleorchid13
reply to post by beezzer

 

I understand that , but I am talking about role reversal here ; the Catholic Church effecting policy and the concerns of them running healthcare facilities with the "right" of prejudice so to speak. The last part is more of a social question and how this effects people.

The church is one thing. But does a hospital qualify as a religious institution?

edit on 16-2-2012 by paleorchid13 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2012 by paleorchid13 because: (no reason given)

Not that it may matter,

But has anyone considered the fact that the Vatican has existed longer than any current government ?

They might have more power than we think !!

reply to post by xuenchen


It matters very much , that does prompt me to perhaps dig a bit deeper. Why is the Catholic church so involved in setting up hospitals , when they've battled science almost every step of the way . May be as simple as to maintain the role of the Church and still be valid in an era where science takes precedence .

Originally posted by paleorchid13
reply to post by beezzer

 

Does a Hospital qualify as a religious institution or more likely ..should it? I see that as a conflict of interest.

That is kind of a Chicken and Egg question isn't it? If there is a hospital that never had religious ownership before and was bought up like all the other merging these days, I suppose I can see a real reason to be upset. A service a community previously had is now gone.

The flip side though is that a large number, if not most of the Catholic and other Faith health facilities were founded, build and run that way from day 1. So....'removing' Religion from health care is literally saying they cannot or need not bother ever opening a health related facility under Church control and with Church funds again. That is a downright chilling thought if one looks around at the % of health facilities of all kinds that are Faith controlled in one form or another.

Obama stepped in a pile this time...and he STILL doesn't seem to get how deep it is. The Government would do really well to just play like this whole topic never came up and drop it...without any action taken in any direction whatever. Christians still won't forget...but I sure don't like the talk I hear from the Church and the Faithful regarding this..... It's a bad situation all around.