It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

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.
Yes. Currently, it does. It's an extension of the church. Churches also have food banks. They have schools. It is in essence, a part of the religious service that the church provides. Since they can't provide adequate medical care in a church building, they create another building where they can provide medical care. That building just so happens to be called a hospital.

Muslim schools receive federal funding. Would you support pork products being on the school menu?




posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I do like your response , and that's what I want ; people to put on their thinking caps and see this issue through.

This is not a "my opinion is right" thread. There are some serious issues in healthcare that need to be addressed. I come from the stance that you CANNOT under any circumstance, favor one religion over another.
Putting that in mind , It really makes me think ..like you said , everyone with a religious or moral conviction stepping on the bandwagon and setting up Hospitals and refusing other types of care.

I also am concerned about precedents set, and that if religious people (ALL different types of religions)ran our entire healthcare system ..what would that be like...and is that fair?



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
I am more bothered by the gov't role in healthcare then a church's. Politicians are influenced by money and that does not mean that they are making decisions with people best interests in mind. Granted I don't like how church's deal with modern issues [I.E. birth control and abortion] they at least are coming from a belief however misguided I personally feel it is. Remember one of the biggest lies in the world is "I'm from your government and I'm here to help you"



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
There is a clear example of how business run hospitals operate (as seen on this thread) and religious hospitals operate (also seen on this thread) and how government run hospitals operate.

Ever hear of the V.A.?

Again, argue hospital control issues all you want, when the government decided to run healthcare, this became a 1st Ammendment issue.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by paleorchid13
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I do like your response , and that's what I want ; people to put on their thinking caps and see this issue through.

This is not a "my opinion is right" thread. There are some serious issues in healthcare that need to be addressed. I come from the stance that you CANNOT under any circumstance, favor one religion over another.
Putting that in mind , It really makes me think ..like you said , everyone with a religious or moral conviction stepping on the bandwagon and setting up Hospitals and refusing other types of care.

I also am concerned about precedents set, and that if religious people (ALL different types of religions)ran our entire healthcare system ..what would that be like...and is that fair?


One point with Obamacare is they have been granting waivers and some exceptions are actually in the "law" ...

and some seem to be "favoring" some religions while others are not considered.


Health bills allow some a religious exemption


Amish families exempt from insurance mandate


exemptions bill's language



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I find medicine outside the realm of religion. Medicine is not supposed to bring in personal bias...how do you feel about the atrocities committed in the name of religion as far as medicine goes?like Africa's Witch children ..where a small child is abused because people in the community got sick? Should they be taught medicine according to their religious principles? Or should medicine remain in the realm of Science , where evidence is the basis of practice and removal of personal bias is absolutely required.


edit on 17-2-2012 by paleorchid13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by paleorchid13
reply to post by beezzer
 


I find medicine outside the realm of religion. Medicine is not supposed to bring in personal bias...how do you feel about the atrocities committed in the name of religion as far as medicine goes?like Africa's Witch children ..where medicine is not understood and a small child is abused because people in the community got sick? Should they be taught medicine according to their religious principles? Or should medicine remain in the realm of Science , where evidence is the basis of practice and removal of personal bias is absolutely required.



Whether I find it right or not is moot.

The approach to treatment within a religious environment is protected under the 1st Ammendment!



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by paleorchid13
 

Dear paleorchid13,

I don't know how well this fits in with everyone else's post, but I suspect it is what you've been looking for. It's called Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services and was issued at the end of 2009.
It's 43 .pdf pages and now and then contains a "Catholic" word which may be a little confusing, so it's not a five minute read.
www.ncbcenter.org...
Depending on your point of view, there are things in it that can make the Church look good or bad.

The Directives deal primarily with
1.) The social aspect of the hospital, stressing care and the human dignity of all regardless of their condition or financial status.
2.) Contraception and Abortion
3.) Artificial insemination
4.) End of life care
5.) Partnerships with other organizations

They break it down differently, but you get the idea.

If you are wondering about abortion, it can be done to save the life of the mother. Contraceptive procedures can be done with a sufficiently grave reason. Artificial insemination? Yes, if it doesn't result in the discarding of embryos (and I forget if there are other restrictions.)

I have gone through the thing and would be glad to answer questions, or you (or anyone else) can look through it if they want.

(Oh, that 28 states have passed the law already business? Not quite. They all have exemptions and ways to opt out. Obamacare doesn't have any.)

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


hmmm... I am interested in hearing where how the first amendment applies when it conflicts with the right to "life , liberty and happiness" . Because religion does not have the right to decide who lives and who dies in the practice of medicine.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
No employer period should have any say in healthcare standards. The fact that they "pay" for it (a fallacy in itself as this is part of the compensation package incentive that gets people to want to work for you) and should therefore have a say is ridiculous. This is what happens when our healthcare industry is comprised of for-profit middlemen who don't give a flying fig about anything but that profit.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 

I just had a thought.

No employer period should have any say in healthcare standards. The fact that they "pay" for it (a fallacy in itself as this is part of the compensation package incentive that gets people to want to work for you) and should therefore have a say is ridiculous. This is what happens when our healthcare industry is comprised of for-profit middlemen who don't give a flying fig about anything but that profit.
The employer and employee have a relationship that's reasonably close. The government doesn't. If it's a fallacy that people who pay for it should have a say, how does the government get a say when they don't even pay for it? And do you think that non-profit Catholic hospitals don't care about anything about profit? I would say that between employer, employee and the insurance company, it's the government that is the middleman that doesn't care about anything except money, or maybe votes.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Thank you ! I am actually interested in the end of life care part of it ...

The contraceptive equality laws I brought up wasn't to derail religion . It was to bring up the fact that there are people who believe that the failure to cover contraception is discrimination , and a women's health issue . I do realize there are religious exemptions , but this was a point to bring up controversy on the different aspects surrounding contraceptives ...not that its just a religious argument , but a social one.

But thank you for the info !



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Healthcare professionals should have the say. The healthcare system should be run as a non-profit, whoever administers it. And when I said fallacy, I was referring to the part where they "pay" for the healthcare.

edit on 2/17/2012 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by paleorchid13
 


only a mentally competant patient should be permitted to veto treatments based on beleifs [ of any sort ]



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by paleorchid13
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Putting that in mind , It really makes me think ..like you said , everyone with a religious or moral conviction stepping on the bandwagon and setting up Hospitals and refusing other types of care.

I also am concerned about precedents set, and that if religious people (ALL different types of religions)ran our entire healthcare system ..what would that be like...and is that fair?


Well, I have to say your level of interest in having a thread in depth on this has really gotten me to thinking.. I also looked at your past thread OP's to get a feel for where you're coming from and that made me think more.... Hmmm

First, the issue you bring up regarding federal money accepted is a very valid one and frankly one I hadn't really considered. I suppose that single factor really does change the nature of the argument on this because they honestly can't have that one both ways. They are either Faith based health facilities/institutions operating on their own definitions of what is right within the Faith or they are partially supported by Fed and State money. Surprisingly, since I hadn't considered this, it seems they do take both. Hmmm... How then CAN they sincerely complain that strings about the size of Aircraft Carrier anchor chains come attatched to all that money, eventually? Doom on them that it happened to be Obama that came knocking for what they'd get to pay for accepting the money....but there it is.
Wow..how a topic can change, and THAT factor really does, doesn't it?



Assuming they can divorce themselves of the funding that comes with a certain right to dictate services.........and ALL that follows assumes that happens first. I really thought hard on this..and I can't imagine how this issue looks from someone who simply is without or anti-religion. However....I tried imagining Muslims opening a larger, nicer and more advanced facility than the Catholic one...and with the same freedom to pick and choose what they would deem fit to do in that superior facility.


Now THAT does really cast this in an interesting light. The answer can't be to force the religious controlled institutions to change. It simply can't be and that isn't negotiable. The 1st amendment is inviolate and it is clear. If we get loose with the Constitutional amendments in any way, there is no real end to where it can go. We're seeing it in other areas...it can't and won't be allowed here. The Church is absolute far beyond the Government's ability to match it. In the example I imagined...it would really piss me off...but, the Constitution isn't something that can be conditional.

There is an exception to that and it's one that covers most of the concerns here, I believe. Almost every part of the Constitution where it would ever apply, exceptions have been made for serious public safety or protection of life and the like. In this case, it's nothing in new precedent to say that ONLY in situations of medical NECESSITY and/or LIFE saving requirement....religious beliefs come second and whatever facility has the patient or is closest will just deal with it and do what has to be done. THAT is a fair thing to absolutely require across the board and I can't see anyone disagreeing with. It's common sense.

If the only facility serving a community is one that isn't offering something...a strictly constitutional approach ...well, okay, without violating the FIRST amendment anyway, would be for the Government to supply transportation to a facility that DOES offer such a thing. Now doing anything at all is really not a duty of the Feds, regardless..and I think that is really the point. However, if they MUST get involved, they can supply solutions involving other providers...even at a bit of Gov't transported distance....to those who really need it.

That's an attempt at thinking out a couple approaches this could be handled in that don't include pushing so much more division in our nation it's just about tearing apart. We already had polarization beyond all reason...and this adds a whole new dimension. Church's and their direct possessions and controlled facilities just can't be forced though. Not under the American system. Never. It's as fundamental as anything is in our nation.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by paleorchid13
reply to post by beezzer
 


hmmm... I am interested in hearing where how the first amendment applies when it conflicts with the right to "life , liberty and happiness" . Because religion does not have the right to decide who lives and who dies in the practice of medicine.

You're right. Religious freedom does not include infringment on anothers life.
But an individuals OWN life?
If they follow a cerain faith that precludes "life saving" options, then they certainly can apply their religious freedoms. I've seen someone die because they refused a transfusion.

Government does not have a right to impose, infringe on any religious doctrine, as long as it fulfills the requirements in the 1st ammendment.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   


That's an attempt at thinking out a couple approaches this could be handled in that don't include pushing so much more division in our nation it's just about tearing apart.
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Well ..wow ! I agree that religion tends to be a dividing factor ....I agree with the first amendment that everyone
has the right to believe what they believe ..but mixing science and religion, is a no no. Medicine is science and should be respected as such....

Not so sure that it would pan well , government transportation to a non -religious organization.

I really do appreciate your input, and I will spend some time and consideration over what you said





posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I absolutely agree with you . An individual has the right to deny any medical treatment, emphasis on the individual. Individuals can decide for themselves based on their religious convictions , what they want to do ...no organization or institution should be deciding for them.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I find it interesting that you bring up the Amish . I had a professor tell me that an Amish child came in with severe wounds on his hand and the father requested the hand to be chopped off because it was cheaper . The medical staff refused out of moral principles ....The Amish are an interesting bunch.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by paleorchid13
reply to post by beezzer
 


I absolutely agree with you . An individual has the right to deny any medical treatment, emphasis on the individual. Individuals can decide for themselves based on their religious convictions , what they want to do ...no organization or institution should be deciding for them.

But religious doctrine teaches/believes these fundamentals.

Disagree with church tenents all you want.

THEY have a right to practice what they interpret as their beliefs. THEY have a right to dictate what practices are allowed and not allowed within their own arena. THAT right is guaranteed by the Constitution.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join