Catholic Hospital Reprimands Doctor for Mere Mention of Abortion

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   



A dispute between a Colorado cardiologist and the hospital he works for has highlighted a growing area of concern among patient advocates and civil libertarians: gag rules imposed on doctors and nurses by Catholic health-care providers.

In a complaint filed Wednesday, ACLU of Colorado accused Mercy Regional Medical Center in Durango, in the remote southwest corner of the state, of illegally telling doctors and other employees that they cannot discuss abortion with patients, even if a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life. The complaint was filed with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, which oversees the state’s hospitals.

“Mercy Regional’s moral objection to abortion does not exempt the hospital from complying with [state and federal] laws,” the ACLU’s Sara Rich wrote to the health department, “and the hospital cannot invoke its religious status to jeopardize the health and lives of pregnant women seeking medical care.”

In a statement, hospital spokesman David Bruzzese said the complaint was “based on inaccurate information.” He said Mercy takes “very seriously the care we provide to our patients.”


I have often wondered about this sort of thing. Institutions religious beliefs interfering with getting the best medical care possible but in this case it seems they would risk a person’s life for their religious beliefs not even telling them their options.



The ERDs, a set of 72 guidelines issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, restrict a range of reproductive health options that conflict with church teachings — abortion, birth control, sterilization, fertility treatments — as well as certain end-of-life care possibilities and stem cell research. The directives also have been interpreted by many hospitals to prohibit emergency abortions for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies as well as emergency contraception after sexual assault (which generally works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg).

The directives have long been controversial with women’s health advocates and civil libertarians, and the Colorado episode, they say, underscores why.

The guidelines don’t just restrict what doctors and nurses at Catholic providers may do; they can even limit what health professionals are allowed to say. Mercy’s policy “prevents physicians from fulfilling their ethical obligations” to patients and “interferes with patients’ rights to make informed decisions regarding their medical care,” the complaint said. The policy also violates patient safeguards under Medicare and Medicaid as well as a Colorado law protecting physicians’ autonomy, the ACLU said.

Mark Silverstein, ACLU of Colorado’s legal director, said that by barring doctors from informing patients about all possible treatment options, Mercy Regional poses “a potential threat to the health, safety and even the lives of its patients.”

The potential risk to patients is especially grave in communities like Durango, where a Catholic hospital is the only one for miles around, added Sheila Reynertson of MergerWatch, a New York–based nonprofit that tracks Catholic hospital consolidations and their impact. She noted that so-called “sole provider” hospitals — there are 30 of them in mostly isolated parts of the country — receive additional federal funds to serve the needs of their communities, as well as Medicare, Medicaid and other tax breaks.
the contractor

Those hospitals take government funds get tax exemptions based off of religious status they get a unfair advantage in the free market because of it and because in some cases they are the only game in town they are ramming their religious beliefs down other people’s throats by either not offering or even informing patients of their treatment options.

It is time to revoke tax free status on religious organizations and if they take government moneys they better leave their superstitions at home and do the job they are supposed to do.




posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Afternoon,

Revoke tax exempt status for organized religion?
Where do I sign and can I sign more than once?

-Peace-



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Abortions should be available to all women, it should be their choice. What I do question though, is it moral to use it as a form of contraceptive?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
That really seems like a choice to be made by the patient.

NOT the doctors.

Not the organization behind the doctors.

A patient should be presented with all medically viable options for their treatment, and than their deeply personal religious ideologies can be taken into account by them...

NOT BY some overreaching all controlling religious group with a seat on the UN and probably amoung the most wealthiest organizations in the world.

The catholics have a long way to go before Id give two craps about their "Moral" ideology on issues.
edit on 18-11-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


I think that would be the old Soviet Union you'd be seeking for an anti-religious ideology. Even the new version dropped that stupidity in the face of an overwhelming majority of their population never buying it anyway.

Fortunately our 1st covers not only the freedom of choice but freedom of practice, as well. So in this case? Well, we can either accept the fact that Religious institutions do not and never will tolerate or permit Abortions....or we can watch them literally close those facilities and just leave entirely.

Good? Better? Should major hospitals simply close up rather than decline a SINGLE procedure out of the hundreds attended to on an average day? If so, well, if the pushing keeps up we'll see what happens.

To Catholics, this is a Salvation issue..not a matter of "choice". They'll close everything before violating it in most cases ..and in ALL cases I personally know to ask an opinion for. Salvation issues transcend ANY man-made law ..as man's law only has jurisdiction for a lifetime. The law they follow before that, has it for eternity. There isn't a competition on any level, IMO...or theirs.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Grimpachi
Institutions religious beliefs interfering with getting the best medical care possible but in this case it seems they would risk a person’s life for their religious beliefs not even telling them their options.


- Abortion in a Catholic hospital is not an option.
- They have a right to run their church outreach (which a Catholic hospital is) as they wish.
- If someone wants or needs an abortion, they should know better than to go to a Catholic hospital to get one.

The reason they get tax breaks is two fold ...

1- It's a CHURCH outreach. It's part of the church and therefore tax free.

2 -Catholic hospitals are traditionally built in the poorest parts of cities. They provide a great service, especially to the inner city folks. WIthout the hospitals, lots of people would die. It's just that simple.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


I think that would be the old Soviet Union you'd be seeking for an anti-religious ideology. Even the new version dropped that stupidity in the face of an overwhelming majority of their population never buying it anyway.

Fortunately our 1st covers not only the freedom of choice but freedom of practice, as well. So in this case? Well, we can either accept the fact that Religious institutions do not and never will tolerate or permit Abortions....or we can watch them literally close those facilities and just leave entirely.

Good? Better? Should major hospitals simply close up rather than decline a SINGLE procedure out of the hundreds attended to on an average day? If so, well, if the pushing keeps up we'll see what happens.

To Catholics, this is a Salvation issue..not a matter of "choice". They'll close everything before violating it in most cases ..and in ALL cases I personally know to ask an opinion for. Salvation issues transcend ANY man-made law ..as man's law only has jurisdiction for a lifetime. The law they follow before that, has it for eternity. There isn't a competition on any level, IMO...or theirs.


Ive never understood Religious people when they talk on Abortion.

They tout one aspect of their Ideology, while blatantly ignoring others.

I am a stated Christian, and frankly my view is that its a far more complex issue than simple religious demagoguery.

Personally, until the day every christian who has room and the means adopts a child, they can all SHTFU about a horrific and traumatizing choice women sometimes have to make.

Perhaps if they created a world where a mother knew, no matter what, their child would be taken into a loving home, abortion wouldn't be a problem...

Im not even adding to the fact of separation of church and state, and the law of the land we live in allows it.

SO if its a medically viable option that could help the mother, well, a DOCTOR, has an obligation to the patient, not to his bosses Ideology.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Look I can understand that religious hospitals will not perform abortions but that isn’t what this is about. They do not want doctors to even mention it even in cases where the woman’s life is in danger.

That is where they have overstepped. In this article they are trying to tell a heart specialist what he can and cannot say to his patient.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 



Ive never understood Religious people when they talk on Abortion.


In all honesty, that sums it up right there and without going any further. You don't and can't understand it, if you don't see their point for it being a Salvation issue or a total non negotiable point to their Belief system.

I have no concept of how Muslims can actually hold true faith to the 5 Pillars of Islam. They seem silly to me in at last 2 parts. I also can't, for the life of me, grasp the concept behind Jehova Witness prohibitions on things like a blood transfusion, even from a known source or blood relative. I understand their stated logic. I can't grasp it on a meaningful level.

The same can and will be said by many about the quirks of my Wiccan Faith.

..and so it is we have the laws and Constitution we do, to insure respect for all even if belief follows none. It's an amazing system and works quite well...most of the time.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by benrl
 



Ive never understood Religious people when they talk on Abortion.


In all honesty, that sums it up right there and without going any further. You don't and can't understand it, if you don't see their point for it being a Salvation issue or a total non negotiable point to their Belief system.

I have no concept of how Muslims can actually hold true faith to the 5 Pillars of Islam. They seem silly to me in at last 2 parts. I also can't, for the life of me, grasp the concept behind Jehova Witness prohibitions on things like a blood transfusion, even from a known source or blood relative. I understand their stated logic. I can't grasp it on a meaningful level.

The same can and will be said by many about the quirks of my Wiccan Faith.

..and so it is we have the laws and Constitution we do, to insure respect for all even if belief follows none. It's an amazing system and works quite well...most of the time.


Theology major here, that started as an Atheist and became a christian.

Im talking people who have a religion and not faith.

Ill be blunt, I fully believe in my heart the christian faith, and I believe death is not such a bad thing, for a christian.

I also believe God is loving and fair (which we can argue to the end of time) BUT it is my belief that every one of those "abortions" or fetal cells that get destroyed by man, are in a better place than this cess pool we have allowed the earth to become.

I also believe we in america have a concept of Separation of Church and state, and as "render onto caesar" its not my place to condemn, but to work the system lovingly in a manner that Christ would be proud of.

And that includes taking care of the children already here, and letting God handle those that man has killed.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Grimpachi
Look I can understand that religious hospitals will not perform abortions but that isn’t what this is about. They do not want doctors to even mention it even in cases where the woman’s life is in danger.


So you'd like doctors in the Catholic hospital to tell women that they need to have an abortion and that they have to leave the hospital to go have one? Okay. But here's the thing, Catholic hospitals can't advise a woman to have an abortion. It's against the religion.

I believe that a person having an abortion to save their life isn't a sin.
BUT ... This is what the church says .... and the hospital is part of their church so that is how they run it.

Catholic Net

there are no cases in which the Orthodox Church–or the Roman Catholic Church, for that matter–condones abortion. (Nor did the Episcopal Church, in healthier times.) The act is murder, and it is always murder, and there are no circumstances, whatever, in which murder is a legitimate moral option. The deliberate, directly intended killing of an innocent life is a sin that screams to heaven for vengeance. Always, in all circumstances, and with no exceptions.


BUT if you read further, it tells of how a tubal pregnancy can be ended and others ...

According to the church, you can't have 'an abortion', but if you have a medical procedure such as removing a fallopian tube because of fallopian pregnancy, then that's not really an abortion so it's okay. Read what the article says.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I am sorry but no one is asking them to perform an abortion or unnecessary surgery that would cause the death of a child they simply need to allow their doctors to inform their patients of their options even if one of those options happens to be abortion. Even if they have to go somewhere else for it.

Would they respect Mormons beliefs and not notify them that they can die without an essential blood transfusion.

You may view the hospitals as necessary you may even think that if they left others wouldn’t take their place but I assure you they would. I have seen some of them and they seem to be making pretty good money. Maybe it’s those government subsidiaries and tax free status they get. All the more reason to have a healthcare system like the UK or Canada instead of for profit. To me this is pure insanity no better than some of the things I have seen in the Middle East.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Grimpachi
no one is asking them to perform an abortion or unnecessary surgery that would cause the death of a child

They can't even suggest that someone have an abortion.
It's against their religion to participate AT ALL.
And telling someone to go get an abortion is participating in the act.
Therefore, no Catholic hospital can EVER suggest to a woman to go get an abortion.


You may view the hospitals as necessary ..

They are. If you shut down the Catholic hospitals, (and, for that matter,the other religious hospitals that don't perform abortions) then the other hospitals wouldn't be able to handle the massive increase in flow. And the inner city folks wouldn't be able to get their emergency room style health care.

Like it or not ... and I can see that you don't like it ... the hospitals serve a purpose.
Just because they can't have anything to do with abortion isn't a reason to shut them down.
That would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
well I think religious owned institutions are disgusting. and the christian right to impose beliefs on people who desire well rounded help. disgusting.

however. this is a Christian owned and run hospital isn't it? shouldn't they be allowed to do this? shouldn't that doctor be allowed to refuse to work there? shouldn't the patient be allowed to not go to that hospital?

everyone is so damn entitled.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Science and religion should never be mixed.

I think no woman should be able to murder her baby. That's a mental illness(IMO) and the patient who seeks to kill their baby should be sent to a psychiatric ward for evaluation. Only if the woman is in danger, rape, or some bad deformity should be the only time that abortion should be considered.

If this doctor was recommending abortion because of rape, deformity, or danger to the woman, I don't see a problem. If he just recommends it to women like a contraceptive, then he has to go. I'm sure many hospitals in New York would love to have him.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Bisman
 


Yeah how could anyone expect to get sound medical advice when going to a hospital its like they think the are entitled to what they are PAYING FOR.

THINK ABOUT IT.


The case involves Dr. Michael Demos, a cardiologist at Mercy since 2005, and a female patient with a family history of Marfan syndrome, an inherited disorder of the connective tissues that has been called “one of the most feared cardiovascular complications associated with pregnancy.” In women with the condition, the strains on the body brought on by pregnancy can cause the aorta to rupture, almost always killing the mother. Thus the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association recommend that if a patient’s aorta becomes enlarged beyond a certain point, her pregnancy should be terminated.


With that info why would anyone think a life may be in danger.
But don't tell the patient its against the rules.

Oh yeah forgot religion trumps common sense
edit on 18-11-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Are you kidding me OP? While I am for letting patients know whats best for them, I understand that religion is still religion and that if you go to a religion ran hospital that you'll probably NOT be told everything if it goes beyond the hospitals religious view.

Just like Jehova Witnesses, if they ran a hospital blood transfusions would be a no go. So naturally, if I needed a blood transfusion I WOULDN'T go to a JW ran hospital!



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
It is a violation of the 1st amendment rights of the staff of the hospital to force them to express an opinion that they don't agree with.

You wouldn't go to a mosque to do a Victoria Secret Catalogue photo shoot, would you?



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Auricom
 


So by your line of thought if a woman is pregnant they should not go to a religious hospital period.

Seems like many posters here have not absorbed the OP or article. Especially the part where these religious hospitals are the only game in town. Also where it is the medical staff that are being persecuted for speaking their mind not the other way around.

I say take away the financial perks they get for being a religion then the free market can take its course.
edit on 18-11-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Sounds to me like you've just got a grudge against Catholic hospitals.
They do FANTASTIC work, and it's done in places that really need it.
WIthout them, a lot of people would be dead and sick and have no medical care.

The only thing they don't do is abortions ... which is their right to not do them.
And yet you'd close them all down over that? Really?
Think about it for a while and perhaps you'll see how that makes no sense.

This is a CATHOLIC OUTREACH. It's part of the church.
Everyone who goes to the hospital knows that.


Grimpachi
Seems like many posters here have not absorbed the OP or article. Especially the part where these religious hospitals are the only game in town.

Actually, it seems that YOU haven't figured that part out yet. Obviously if the church hospital is 'the only game in town' then it is desperately needed. And to say it should be shut down because they won't perform abortions is an exceptionally extreme statement. Again ... throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You'd do a hell of a lot more harm to people then 'not having abortions' could ever do.





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join