It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 02:32 AM
reply to post by ignorant_ape

I'm sorry , I don't think I understood your post ..please elaborate

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

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 06:18 AM

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.
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I predict , using my awesome powers (lol) ..that a different tune would make sh#$ hit the fan!

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 06:34 AM
reply to post by paleorchid13

certainly - lets see what i wrote , ah yes :

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

i mean just what i wrote , ie only the patient can veto treatment - not the doctor or a third party [ employer , healthcare provider etc ]


if a patient wishes to refuse a medical treatment viotlates his beliefs - thats fine providing they are mentally competant and legally capable of giving or refusing consent , its thier descision and i support , though not always approve that

however if the parents of a baby attempt to refuse treatement that violates thier [ the parents ] beliefs - then screw them - get a court order and treat the baby according to its medical needs - not its parents beliefs

likewise , i have no time for " doctors " who attempt to refuse treatment the [ the doctor ] disaprove of on religious grounds - a doctor can refuse treatment based on medical grounds - but not because he disaproves of it

bottom line - the mentally competant patient should be given any medically justified treatment they want - and be free to refuse any treatment they dont want

does that clarify it ?

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 06:45 AM
I think it is hypocritical for an organization to refuse to accept the conditions under which it accepts taxpayers' money... especially when they don't pay taxes themselves. I say, abolish tax-exempt status for religious organizations. That might bring the First Amendment into sharper focus.

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:38 AM
I personally don't know how anyone survived a hundred years ago. No welfare, no disability, no social security, no Medicare, no prescription drugs, no health insurance and worst of all no birth control pills. All of these "rights" didn't exist, and yet society was able to prosper.

The government has no business dictating any of the above listed. This is a precursor to the nwo system that is coming. You like big government now? Wait and see whats coming next

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:49 AM
Yeah do not believe the propaganda

I was thinking hard to make a sarcastic or satire like remark on the article, but you cant improve on it in that regard.

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:53 AM

Is a church's role in healthcare dangerous and inappropriate

No. That's absurd.

There are Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, and Jewish hospitals all around us. The Catholic ones are usually built in the worst neighborhoods and serve the poor a great deal. They do a great job.

If you are referring to the fact that Catholic hospitals don't want to pay for 'the pill' ... that's not 'dangerous and inappropriate'. Those people who work in the hospitals can still get their birth control ... costs 25 cents for a condom in any drug store or gas station.

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by paleorchid13

I more scared of government's role in healthcare than I could ever be in a church role. The government can't even fix our roads, we want them to work on our bodies? Riiiight.


posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 05:36 PM
how is not paying for a woman's birth control dangerous. the separation of church and state is to protect the church, more than the state.

obama and his fake Christian act should stay out of the churches affairs.

and that goes for every so called Christian politician that calls for war around the globe, stealing of other nations resources and support of fraud and theft in wall street.

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:44 PM
In an advanced society, I think that any form of capitalization towards profit in health care is dangerous and inappropriate.

Too bad we aren't advanced yet.

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 11:59 PM
First off, it isn't just Catholic Church fighting this. At the congressional hearing there was a Rabbi, Catholic Bishop, Lutherin Minister, and a few others. There was one comment that brings the First Amendment issue out of the debate.

It is called the Kosher Deli Parable. If someone went to a Kosher Deli and wanted a ham sandwich, should the federal government step in and say Kosher Delis have to serve Ham when it is strictly against their Religious belief?

It really is a slippery slope to start messing with the status quo on the First Amendments grounds. I see this thread had brought most of the conversation going after the Catholic church, but it is all religions actually.

I can understand the argument, but contraception can be had at any pharmacy. There are condoms everywhere. Hospitals are not like family medical doctors, which should be involved in the day to day medical maintenance and that is where the contraception medication should be had. The religious hospitals, do not rule out abortion for saving a life, either one. I know because when I had my wife had our first daughter she had been a victim of crime at 6 months along. The doctors at a 'religous' hospital said strait up running down the hall to surgery, (it was unreal crazy) the doctor looked at me and said, "We are going to try and save your wife first and your daughter second." That is basically the way it is. So, in a case of saving a life, they will perform. However, I don't know anyone that goes to a hospital for basic contraception services. As I said above, that is something that is handled through other medical offices in the community.

As a matter of fact, in Florida anyway, any female in a school can go to a county health facility and recieve contraception services without the knowledge and approval from their parents. Again, it is not a hospital issue. If a woman wants a vouluntary abortion, they have time and can find a facility that does that without violating their faith.

There is my 2 cents.

edit on 18/2/12 by spirit_horse because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 12:23 AM

Originally posted by paleorchid13
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.

Then don't go to a Catholic Hospital. I am beginning to understand why the early Church showed little tolerance to atheist's and secularist's. Bunch of sick, compulsive control freaks if you ask me.

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 12:29 AM

Originally posted by korathin
Then don't go to a Catholic Hospital. I am beginning to understand why the early Church showed little tolerance to atheist's and secularist's. Bunch of sick, compulsive control freaks if you ask me.

How exactly is it a Catholic hospital?

Please explain this to me.

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:36 AM
reply to post by kingofmd

There also weren't some three-hundred million people in country and seven-billion people world wide. Nor we're there jets, instantaneous communication and a whole host of other technological improvements. People also worked for a company who paid them in company dollars for use at company stores and lived in company housing. You know there was a reason that things happened and turned out the way the did as time moved forward. But if you want to live in the past, so be it, but don't force those of us who wish to build for the future to live by your archaic and simplistic values. The world is not so simplistic any more.
edit on 18-2-2012 by DarkKnight76 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by korathin

This isn't just about contraceptives , but I will be more than happy to whip out my Davis's Drug guide and discuss all the alternative treatments contraceptives have to offer such as prevention of Ovarian cancer...heck even vaginal creams are the most appropriate choice to use on a man with a skin fungi.

This is about medicine remaining bias free and maintaining integrity for the best interest of patients. Yes, there are many things , like you said "putting money ahead of patients" , but religious run hospitals do accept taxpayer money.

Religious institutions have rights , yes . But when you are running a hospital, it is your job to do what is best to maintain a patients well-being, safety, life, and quality of life ..not to compromise those things based on your religious Bias.

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by spirit_horse

Yes, and a woman who wanted to speak on the behalf of alternative treatments of contraceptives was not allowed to speak.
I will provide an example of how refusal to offer treatment based on a religious principle , compromises the integrity of healthcare and tramples on peoples rights.

Depo-provera ..(medroxyprogesterone) a common contraceptive .... Alternative uses include:

to decrease endometrial hyperplasia in postmenopausal women
treatment of secondary amenorrhea and abnormal uterine bleeding caused by hormonal imbalance
treatment of advanced unresponsive endometrial or renal carcinoma
management of endometriosis -associated pain
sleep apnea
obesity-hypo-ventilation syndrome

Some pretty serious health complications can be treated here.

I would find it unacceptable that a medical establishment would offer a less effective /more dangerous medication , or no treatment at all because someone wants to exercise religious bias.

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 04:17 PM
The whole matter of applying the First Amendment would be clearer if you take a look at the original intent of the lawmakers. The Amendments to the US Constitution were written in order to protect the rights of INDIVIDUALS from collectives and rulers, and the first one was written to protect the practice by INDIVIDUALS of whatever form of religion they believed in. Even atheism is your right under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment was never intended to cover institutions and corporations. That interpretation came based upon the 14th Amendment, written almost another century later, - again originally targeting individuals, to assure constitutional rights to all people born in the US (as opposed to laws that would attempt to exclude a certain part of the population based on race).

This was later taken advantage of by corporate lawyers, with the assistance of the Supreme Court. Advertising is now protected by the amendment of freedom of speech - originally intended to ensure the freedom of speech of individuals from collective entities such as the state, and not the freedom of speech of collectives such as institutions. Even political donation of money by collective entities such as corporations is now accepted as a form of "speech" which falls under that amendment. This interpretation has long gone into the absurd, with absurd results.

If you argued about what an individual patient or doctor or nurse could do, naturally they can each limit their own choices by their chosen religious beliefs in the US. We haven't heard here from Catholic doctors treating non-Catholic patients for example, who could demand their own freedom of (and from) religion. It would be also interesting to see how the Hippocratic Oath, state and federal obligations are harmonizing or in conflict with certain religious beliefs.

I do not think it is appropriate for an institution to have all-out ban policies based upon religion. It should be the other way around. If a Jewish patient checks into a Jewish run hospital, I guess he/she can have a choice of kosher food. But do Jewish doctors refuse to help people on a Sabbath? I would like to find out how that works. But that is again a question of individuals. Not institutions.

Do institutions get to heaven when they die?
Are Christian institutions saved by the sacrifice of Christ?
Can institutions sin and be forgiven?

Most Christians I know would answer no to all three.
So then why try to apply the First Amendment to an institution run by a religious organization?

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 04:24 PM
All of that can be handled through your family doctor or county health clinic. And medicaid and all the other government health coverage pays them just as much.

This is, regardless of how the left wants to try and make it about womens contraceptive/health a First Amendment issue. The government can not make a law to force a Faith based institution to go against what they have stood for for well over a thousand years. Longer than the US has even been a country.

I suppose you think these communties will be better off when the faith based institutions close all of their hospitals and health care facilites because they are not going to do something that is against their faith.

It will never be seen the way that the administration is trying to make it. You can argue all the health issues you want, but at the end of the day, you are trying to make a law to force a religious/faith based institution to do something against their faith and it is NOT Constitutional period. And as I said before, it can be accquired elsewhere.

Once you violate the First Amendment, then no other law will be restrained from it. We have seen it with the government oversteping it's Constitutional Authority already and it is getting more and more out of control. That is also why the whole health care law will fail constitutional muster in the Supreme Court. We are not a European Nation. This is the way it is in the US and always has been. Now, we have an administration that doesn 't want to follow their Constitutional restrictions and it will find out the hard way that the law can't stand.

I will bring in the Individual Mandate here though it is not the primary focus of this thread. However, it will fail for the same reason. Once you start mandating fines to people who don't buy insurance, then they will start mandating all kinds of other fees, fines, etc. The federal government has not been given the authority to force people to buy a product as a result of being a citizen, which insurance is a product.

How would you feel if the federal government in two years decided that pain management patients cost so much to support for medications that they decide to mandate that you will have to pay $100 a week out of your paycheck so the government can provide that medication to the millions of pain paitents? And lets say it is a Republican Administration that passes the law. zthe democrats would be throwing a total fit over it, as you would be too. However, it is health care related. Are you going to argue just a vehemently for the law to be allowed for that group and where does it stop once you let this begine to happen. I have news for you. It won't stop. If they are not stoped at this point, then you might as well be relegated to seeing your paycheck and freedoms go down the drain, much more so then now.

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by Kokatsi

That brings up another issue. If you can dictate what a doctor or institution has to prescribe, and once youdo that, then why can't patients force the doctor to prescribe the medicine they want? Like stated in another post, Depo-Provera does many things for womens health. However, there are other medications for the very same problems. So, instead of using the other medications, the doctor is forced to prescribe the contraceptive medication Depo-Provera.

Now you are opening up a whole other can of worms. And I don't necessarly think that all the practicing physicians in those institutions don't prescribe the medications everyone is complaining about anyway. An individual doctor that works at a hospital may not be, for example, Jewish or Christioan at all and may have no problem writing that prescription.

So, it gets back to paying for it. The Faith based organizations do not want to pay for it and shouldn't have to. If you want the government to pay for it then fine. The administration said insurance carriers would pay for it, but if the Church has to pay for the police that provides they are paying for it. If the government wants it so bad, let them pay for it. They certainly are capable of subsidizing a womans policy to pay for the contraceptive drugs. But in this case, the government is trying to make faith based organizations pay for it and they can not do that. It is against their faith.

And the law has exceptions in it so Muslims do not have to comply with buying insurance. There is an exemption for Amish groups as well. All they need to do is exempt any religous organization..

It is unconstitutional to give one religious group a pass not to provide for insurance and make other ones pay. I may become a Muslim and put and end to me having to pay. But, I am willing to bet that there are Muslims in the US that do receive Medicaid/Medicare etc. or some assistance toward medical care. They may not and show up at the hospital to be treated. The whole health law is unconstitutional on several grounds. The Supreme Court will have to make the exemption for every religious group or none. What, are they scared if they make Muslims pay the mandate that they may revolt?! BS in my book and it will not make it through the Supreme Court.

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 02:35 AM

Originally posted by paleorchid13
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 !

Out of curiosity why do you use the word "equality" in the place of the word "supremacy"? As the only birth control pill/implants available in the American market are for the gal's only. If you remove the pills, then there is equality. As both men and women have access to condoms designed for their respective bodies.

So what your seeking to promote is in actuality an unequal situation. Thus your supporting gender based supremacy!

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in