weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 2, 2019 12:17:58 GMT -5
He needed a gender-affirming procedure. The hospital said no. When patients go to the doctor, they expect treatment rooted in the latest medical advancements, not interpretations of the Bible. But as medical facilities continue to close or merge with better-funded institutions, Christian hospitals, which may hew to religious doctrine when making treatment decisions, are becoming a lone source of care for many Americans. Catholic entities currently make up three of the top six largest health care chains; 17 percent of the hospital beds in America are in Catholic facilities, which are growing more rapidly than those of other religious sects and most other hospital chains, especially in rural areas. In states such as Alaska, Washington, and Iowa, more than 40 percent of beds are controlled by Catholic facilities and patients who need help may find that Catholic providers are the only option. www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/10/25/20929539/catholic-hospitals-religious-refusal-rural-health-care-evan-mintonIf you're refused treatment, you can go to another hospital. Oh wait......... And, she notes, if her employer-provided insurance coverage changes, she may not have a choice between the religiously affiliated and secular hospitals in her community. What about the hospital in the next town over where she might seek care if her insurance no longer covered visits to the hospital she uses now? It’s Catholic.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 2, 2019 12:19:01 GMT -5
Making America Great Again....by pushing it back to the 17th century. Unbelievable.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,444
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 2, 2019 13:50:49 GMT -5
You can add this to the 'What the Hell' thread too. Playing to trump's base. Proposed HHS rule would roll back LGBTQ protections in adoption, foster careThe Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new rule Friday that would allow recipients of federal grants from the health agency, including faith-based adoption agencies and foster care providers, to turn away same-sex couples. The rule would roll back an Obama-era regulation that went into effect days before he left office in 2017 that inserted nondiscrimination language on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity when determining the recipients of grants from the agency. The Trump administration’s move was cheered by religious groups who argued the Obama rule violated those groups’ religious liberties. But civil rights groups quickly rebuked the move, which came on the first day of National Adoption Month, calling it an attack on the LGBTQ community. The proposed rule, which is still subject to a public comment period and will likely be challenged in court, strips out language specifically barring against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in favor of prohibiting discrimination to potential grant recipients “to the extent doing so is prohibited by federal statute” or Supreme Court rulings. Complete article here: Proposed HHS rule would roll back LGBTQ protections in adoption, foster care
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 2, 2019 14:00:24 GMT -5
Little wonder the rest of the world considers you a third world country. With money.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 2, 2019 14:01:15 GMT -5
You can add this to the 'What the Hell' thread too. Playing to trump's base. Proposed HHS rule would roll back LGBTQ protections in adoption, foster careThe Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new rule Friday that would allow recipients of federal grants from the health agency, including faith-based adoption agencies and foster care providers, to turn away same-sex couples. The rule would roll back an Obama-era regulation that went into effect days before he left office in 2017 that inserted nondiscrimination language on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity when determining the recipients of grants from the agency. The Trump administration’s move was cheered by religious groups who argued the Obama rule violated those groups’ religious liberties. But civil rights groups quickly rebuked the move, which came on the first day of National Adoption Month, calling it an attack on the LGBTQ community. The proposed rule, which is still subject to a public comment period and will likely be challenged in court, strips out language specifically barring against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in favor of prohibiting discrimination to potential grant recipients “to the extent doing so is prohibited by federal statute” or Supreme Court rulings. Complete article here: Proposed HHS rule would roll back LGBTQ protections in adoption, foster careWe did away with that crap half a century ago.
|
|
bookkeeper
Well-Known Member
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 13:40:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,692
|
Post by bookkeeper on Nov 2, 2019 17:46:04 GMT -5
I used to live north of Omaha, NE. The hospitals in the area were predominately Catholic. Their pricing was a full 30% more than the going rate at other hospitals. The insurance companies dropped them from preferred providers because of their cost. It took the insurance companies and Catholic Health System many months to come to an agreement over customary charges.
Reproductive care at a Catholic hospital in rural Nebraska is non existent, unless you want to have children.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Nov 3, 2019 16:00:51 GMT -5
He needed a gender-affirming procedure. The hospital said no. When patients go to the doctor, they expect treatment rooted in the latest medical advancements, not interpretations of the Bible. But as medical facilities continue to close or merge with better-funded institutions, Christian hospitals, which may hew to religious doctrine when making treatment decisions, are becoming a lone source of care for many Americans. Catholic entities currently make up three of the top six largest health care chains; 17 percent of the hospital beds in America are in Catholic facilities, which are growing more rapidly than those of other religious sects and most other hospital chains, especially in rural areas. In states such as Alaska, Washington, and Iowa, more than 40 percent of beds are controlled by Catholic facilities and patients who need help may find that Catholic providers are the only option. www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/10/25/20929539/catholic-hospitals-religious-refusal-rural-health-care-evan-mintonIf you're refused treatment, you can go to another hospital. Oh wait......... And, she notes, if her employer-provided insurance coverage changes, she may not have a choice between the religiously affiliated and secular hospitals in her community. What about the hospital in the next town over where she might seek care if her insurance no longer covered visits to the hospital she uses now? It’s Catholic. How unfortunate that some folks believe it is appropriate to force their religious beliefs on others.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 20:03:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 8:35:40 GMT -5
I used to live north of Omaha, NE. The hospitals in the area were predominately Catholic. Their pricing was a full 30% more than the going rate at other hospitals. The insurance companies dropped them from preferred providers because of their cost. It took the insurance companies and Catholic Health System many months to come to an agreement over customary charges. Reproductive care at a Catholic hospital in rural Nebraska is non existent, unless you want to have children. Yes, this is a big issue if the only in-network hospitals are Roman Catholic. When my nephew was born 35 years ago, My DS and DSIL decided they were done- they had another boy and they'd had a stillbirth in between. She chose to give birth at the non-sectarian hospital because she wanted a tubal ligation before she left the hospital. OTOH- isn't it forcing religious beliefs on the Roman Catholic hospitals if we dictate that they must provide BC pills and decises and sterilization? (I was raised RC and I'm an Episcopalian because I believe in access to reliable BC and sterilizations.) No easy answer.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,401
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 4, 2019 11:01:14 GMT -5
I used to live north of Omaha, NE. The hospitals in the area were predominately Catholic. Their pricing was a full 30% more than the going rate at other hospitals. The insurance companies dropped them from preferred providers because of their cost. It took the insurance companies and Catholic Health System many months to come to an agreement over customary charges. Reproductive care at a Catholic hospital in rural Nebraska is non existent, unless you want to have children. Yes, this is a big issue if the only in-network hospitals are Roman Catholic. When my nephew was born 35 years ago, My DS and DSIL decided they were done- they had another boy and they'd had a stillbirth in between. She chose to give birth at the non-sectarian hospital because she wanted a tubal ligation before she left the hospital. OTOH- isn't it forcing religious beliefs on the Roman Catholic hospitals if we dictate that they must provide BC pills and decises and sterilization? (I was raised RC and I'm an Episcopalian because I believe in access to reliable BC and sterilizations.) No easy answer. No. If we forced THEM to take birth control, or we forced THEM to get spayed or neutered, they could claim religious exemption. But if you are a medical establishment, you should offer medical services. If you don't want to do that, be a fucking faith healer and get out of the hospital system.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Nov 4, 2019 11:21:58 GMT -5
Yeah, Ascension is making inroads here.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Nov 4, 2019 11:28:03 GMT -5
This hits really close to home for me. One of the local private hospitals was swallowed up by Providence Health Care which is catholic around 6 years ago. They have stopped providing some medical care necessary for women... it's really a tragedy. Can you imagine being pregnant with a baby that had 0% chance of survival and being told to go home and wait for it to die, then they'd help you? I can tell you I'd love to be a walking coffin for my fetus because some stupid book tells other people that's all I'm good for. This sort of religious based decision making in medicine needs to STOP. www.thestranger.com/seattle/faith-healers/Content?oid=16050396
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Nov 4, 2019 13:04:53 GMT -5
This hits really close to home for me. One of the local private hospitals was swallowed up by Providence Health Care which is catholic around 6 years ago. They have stopped providing some medical care necessary for women... it's really a tragedy. Can you imagine being pregnant with a baby that had 0% chance of survival and being told to go home and wait for it to die, then they'd help you? I can tell you I'd love to be a walking coffin for my fetus because some stupid book tells other people that's all I'm good for. This sort of religious based decision making in medicine needs to STOP. www.thestranger.com/seattle/faith-healers/Content?oid=16050396This is going to impact end of life care too. WA has assisted suicide laws on the books, and Catholic hospitals will not comply. Locally, the only hospital is a Catholic hospital and if you have a terminal disease, you need to go to Seattle for treatment. According to our research (we had a family friend who had ALS and was looking at this option, so did some research for them), if a doctor wants admitting privileges at the only local hospital, he cannot provide means for suicide. Knowing that WA is one of the states where >40% of the hospitals are Catholic affiliates is not a little unsettling. ETA: I am living in the middle of the mess in this article. I am also saddened to see that Providence bought out Swedish, Swedish gave me fabulous treatment when I had my medical nightmare.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Nov 4, 2019 13:22:55 GMT -5
I used to live north of Omaha, NE. The hospitals in the area were predominately Catholic. Their pricing was a full 30% more than the going rate at other hospitals. The insurance companies dropped them from preferred providers because of their cost. It took the insurance companies and Catholic Health System many months to come to an agreement over customary charges. Reproductive care at a Catholic hospital in rural Nebraska is non existent, unless you want to have children. Yes, this is a big issue if the only in-network hospitals are Roman Catholic. When my nephew was born 35 years ago, My DS and DSIL decided they were done- they had another boy and they'd had a stillbirth in between. She chose to give birth at the non-sectarian hospital because she wanted a tubal ligation before she left the hospital. OTOH- isn't it forcing religious beliefs on the Roman Catholic hospitals if we dictate that they must provide BC pills and decises and sterilization? (I was raised RC and I'm an Episcopalian because I believe in access to reliable BC and sterilizations.) No easy answer. The answer is for them to not build a hospital then. Hospitals, at the very least, should all be declared public businesses and and such serve everyone with every procedure. If you want religion to rule every aspect of your business - have fun running your church as that's the only business that should be run based on religious rule. Would it be ok for a hospital to refuse to give treatment for sickle cell anemia under some religious reasoning?
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Nov 4, 2019 13:56:33 GMT -5
I used to live north of Omaha, NE. The hospitals in the area were predominately Catholic. Their pricing was a full 30% more than the going rate at other hospitals. The insurance companies dropped them from preferred providers because of their cost. It took the insurance companies and Catholic Health System many months to come to an agreement over customary charges. Reproductive care at a Catholic hospital in rural Nebraska is non existent, unless you want to have children. Yes, this is a big issue if the only in-network hospitals are Roman Catholic. When my nephew was born 35 years ago, My DS and DSIL decided they were done- they had another boy and they'd had a stillbirth in between. She chose to give birth at the non-sectarian hospital because she wanted a tubal ligation before she left the hospital. OTOH- isn't it forcing religious beliefs on the Roman Catholic hospitals if we dictate that they must provide BC pills and decises and sterilization? (I was raised RC and I'm an Episcopalian because I believe in access to reliable BC and sterilizations.) No easy answer. It is forcing them to provide a standard of care that takes religion out of the equation. It is easy enough to blow off birth control or end of life issues. What would happen if you were in a car accident, needed blood and the closest hospital was run by Jehovah’s Witnesses?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 4, 2019 14:04:46 GMT -5
This hits really close to home for me. One of the local private hospitals was swallowed up by Providence Health Care which is catholic around 6 years ago. They have stopped providing some medical care necessary for women... it's really a tragedy. Can you imagine being pregnant with a baby that had 0% chance of survival and being told to go home and wait for it to die, then they'd help you? I can tell you I'd love to be a walking coffin for my fetus because some stupid book tells other people that's all I'm good for. This sort of religious based decision making in medicine needs to STOP. www.thestranger.com/seattle/faith-healers/Content?oid=16050396 This is going to impact end of life care too. WA has assisted suicide laws on the books, and Catholic hospitals will not comply. Locally, the only hospital is a Catholic hospital and if you have a terminal disease, you need to go to Seattle for treatment. According to our research (we had a family friend who had ALS and was looking at this option, so did some research for them), if a doctor wants admitting privileges at the only local hospital, he cannot provide means for suicide. Knowing that WA is one of the states where >40% of the hospitals are Catholic affiliates is not a little unsettling. ETA: I am living in the middle of the mess in this article. I am also saddened to see that Providence bought out Swedish, Swedish gave me fabulous treatment when I had my medical nightmare. Physician-assisted suicide is legal here, too. You should hear the Canadian Association of Catholic Bishops scream bloody murder and try to put a stop to it. Why can't they mind their own business, or at least their own flock? Why should the Catholic bishops hold any sway over me, an atheist? If they don't agree with doctor-assisted suicide, then don't do it! If I want to do it, what's it to them? Why try to stop me? Meddling busybodies, that's what they are.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,233
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 4, 2019 14:05:20 GMT -5
This hits really close to home for me. One of the local private hospitals was swallowed up by Providence Health Care which is catholic around 6 years ago. They have stopped providing some medical care necessary for women... it's really a tragedy. Can you imagine being pregnant with a baby that had 0% chance of survival and being told to go home and wait for it to die, then they'd help you? I can tell you I'd love to be a walking coffin for my fetus because some stupid book tells other people that's all I'm good for. This sort of religious based decision making in medicine needs to STOP. www.thestranger.com/seattle/faith-healers/Content?oid=16050396CHI is in trouble here because they have wheeled women out into the hall way while having miscarriages because to intervene is considered against God's will. They have also clearly stated it does not matter what my wishes or DH's wishes are if I am trouble they will sacrifice me for the baby. They also will not honor living wills. I was terrified during my pregnancy that something would happen and I'd be taken to CHI Mercy instead of Methodist. They will terminate doctors for prescribing BC for ANY reason. Gynos were getting around the rules by prescribing it for "medical reasons" so the hospital system cracked down and there are NO exceptions for prescribing BC. They are losing doctors and patients left and right because of this but in a lot of areas, especially rural areas, you are screwed because they own every hospital in town. OTOH- isn't it forcing religious beliefs on the Roman Catholic hospitals if we dictate that they must provide BC pills and decises and sterilization? (I was raised RC and I'm an Episcopalian because I believe in access to reliable BC and sterilizations.)
There are also people who have religious beliefs against vaccinations, doctors who won't treat homosexual/trans patients because it is "against their religion" etc. Where do we draw the line? You are a medical professional, you should provide medical care so long as it does not violate MEDICAL ethics to do so. If your religious beliefs are so precarious that they are threatened by a patient taking birth control or being homosexual or wanting their child vaccinated then don't be a freaking medical professional.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 4, 2019 15:14:01 GMT -5
This is going to impact end of life care too. WA has assisted suicide laws on the books, and Catholic hospitals will not comply. Locally, the only hospital is a Catholic hospital and if you have a terminal disease, you need to go to Seattle for treatment. According to our research (we had a family friend who had ALS and was looking at this option, so did some research for them), if a doctor wants admitting privileges at the only local hospital, he cannot provide means for suicide. Knowing that WA is one of the states where >40% of the hospitals are Catholic affiliates is not a little unsettling. ETA: I am living in the middle of the mess in this article. I am also saddened to see that Providence bought out Swedish, Swedish gave me fabulous treatment when I had my medical nightmare. Physician-assisted suicide is legal here, too. You should hear the Canadian Association of Catholic Bishops scream bloody murder and try to put a stop to it. Why can't they mind their own business, or at least their own flock? Why should the Catholic bishops hold any sway over me, an atheist? If they don't agree with doctor-assisted suicide, then don't do it! If I want to do it, what's it to them? Why try to stop me? Meddling busybodies, that's what they are. 1. As to the question of "minding your own business"...if they're citizens of the country then aren't the laws their business? I don't think they should hold any sway over you, but aren't they just as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours? I don't get the impression that if you disagree with laws that your approach is "well none of my business". (FWIW, I think it should be legal, I just don't think people we disagree with should have any less right to speak up). 2. I'm curious if you think Catholic doctors ought to be forced to provide physician-assisted suicides? I'm assuming you're "then don't do it" applies to them as patients, but that you think doctors ought to do it (similar to the purpose of the thread that you think they ought to have to perform all legal medical procedures?)
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 4, 2019 15:22:03 GMT -5
Physician-assisted suicide is legal here, too. You should hear the Canadian Association of Catholic Bishops scream bloody murder and try to put a stop to it. Why can't they mind their own business, or at least their own flock? Why should the Catholic bishops hold any sway over me, an atheist? If they don't agree with doctor-assisted suicide, then don't do it! If I want to do it, what's it to them? Why try to stop me? Meddling busybodies, that's what they are. 1. As to the question of "minding your own business"...if they're citizens of the country then aren't the laws their business? I don't think they should hold any sway over you, but aren't they just as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours? I don't get the impression that if you disagree with laws that your approach is "well none of my business". (FWIW, I think it should be legal, I just don't think people we disagree with should have any less right to speak up). 2. I'm curious if you think Catholic doctors ought to be forced to provide physician-assisted suicides? I'm assuming you're "then don't do it" applies to them as patients, but that you think doctors ought to do it (similar to the purpose of the thread that you think they ought to have to perform all legal medical procedures?) 1. Religious objections have no place in our secular society. If it's offensive to YOUR religion, then don't do it. 2. Nobody is going to FORCE Catholic doctors to perform PAS. That's ridiculous. Does anyone force a thoracic surgeon to do a knee replacement? Does anyone force a gynecologist to to do cataract removal?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 4, 2019 15:38:58 GMT -5
This hits really close to home for me. One of the local private hospitals was swallowed up by Providence Health Care which is catholic around 6 years ago. They have stopped providing some medical care necessary for women... it's really a tragedy. Can you imagine being pregnant with a baby that had 0% chance of survival and being told to go home and wait for it to die, then they'd help you? I can tell you I'd love to be a walking coffin for my fetus because some stupid book tells other people that's all I'm good for. This sort of religious based decision making in medicine needs to STOP. www.thestranger.com/seattle/faith-healers/Content?oid=16050396CHI is in trouble here because they have wheeled women out into the hall way while having miscarriages because to intervene is considered against God's will. They have also clearly stated it does not matter what my wishes or DH's wishes are if I am trouble they will sacrifice me for the baby. They also will not honor living wills. I was terrified during my pregnancy that something would happen and I'd be taken to CHI Mercy instead of Methodist. They will terminate doctors for prescribing BC for ANY reason. Gynos were getting around the rules by prescribing it for "medical reasons" so the hospital system cracked down and there are NO exceptions for prescribing BC. They are losing doctors and patients left and right because of this but in a lot of areas, especially rural areas, you are screwed because they own every hospital in town. OTOH- isn't it forcing religious beliefs on the Roman Catholic hospitals if we dictate that they must provide BC pills and decises and sterilization? (I was raised RC and I'm an Episcopalian because I believe in access to reliable BC and sterilizations.)
There are also people who have religious beliefs against vaccinations, doctors who won't treat homosexual/trans patients because it is "against their religion" etc. Where do we draw the line? You are a medical professional, you should provide medical care so long as it does not violate MEDICAL ethics to do so. If your religious beliefs are so precarious that they are threatened by a patient taking birth control or being homosexual or wanting their child vaccinated then don't be a freaking medical professional. Just picking out a few random points: ::There are also people who have religious beliefs against vaccinations, doctors who won't treat homosexual/trans patients because it is "against their religion" etc. Where do we draw the line?:: I think one place you draw the line is not having it on a doctor by doctor basis. I think it makes a lot more sense that if you ARE going to limit things, it be at the organizational level where it can be clearly conveyed to patients/potential patients. I think the other place the line gets drawn is that you can't discriminate on the basis of protected classes. It's discrimination of a protected class to say "I won't treat a homosexual". It's not discrimination of a protected class to say "I won't perform this procedure on anyone". I think the other thing to take into account is that doctors are not there to simply write up what patients want. Doctors have their own opinion on best practices. One doctor might say "Yeah, I'll give you a prescription for a potent painkiller for this" while another might hear the exact same thing and say "I don't think that's warranted". That's where I see a lot of things like birth control going. It doesn't exactly fall into a medical NEED...or at least the extent it becomes a NEED is when you say "I want it" (which again, doesn't really signify a need as I think of it). I do think there is/should be more leeway for refusing to do things that aren't actually medically necessary...and especially if those things aren't immediate (i.e. I'm dying and need antibiotics NOW is a lot different than I want birth control pills and if you won't do it then I have to go to someone else for it tomorrow instead).
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 4, 2019 15:48:42 GMT -5
1. As to the question of "minding your own business"...if they're citizens of the country then aren't the laws their business? I don't think they should hold any sway over you, but aren't they just as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours? I don't get the impression that if you disagree with laws that your approach is "well none of my business". (FWIW, I think it should be legal, I just don't think people we disagree with should have any less right to speak up). 2. I'm curious if you think Catholic doctors ought to be forced to provide physician-assisted suicides? I'm assuming you're "then don't do it" applies to them as patients, but that you think doctors ought to do it (similar to the purpose of the thread that you think they ought to have to perform all legal medical procedures?) 1. Religious objections have no place in our secular society. If it's offensive to YOUR religion, then don't do it. 2. Nobody is going to FORCE Catholic doctors to perform PAS. That's ridiculous. Does anyone force a thoracic surgeon to do a knee replacement? Does anyone force a gynecologist to to do cataract removal? 1. Of course they do...because religious objections are simply a methodology for determining right and wrong. It doesn't mean they need to carry any additional weight, or that governments should put doctrine in place of laws...but whether someone says "I think this is wrong because my religion says it is" or "I think this is wrong because I experienced it" or "I think this is wrong because I had a dream about it". Otherwise you're essentially saying "nobody who identifies with a religion can ever have an opinion on laws"...because those opinions are clearly derived in some part from their religion (just like opinions will be derived in some part based on your upbringing, where you live, etc). You can't separate out "this is a religious objection" vs "this is something I just think is wrong". Those things are intertwined for anyone who is actually devout in a religion (I'm not). 2. It doesn't sound like you know how physician assisted suicides work. You're talking as if you are under the misguided notion that it's a specialization such as a knee replacement...it's not. PAS could be done by literally anyone who can prescribe drugs that taken in large enough amounts will kill you (typically things which won't hurt as they do).
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,401
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 4, 2019 16:13:14 GMT -5
CHI is in trouble here because they have wheeled women out into the hall way while having miscarriages because to intervene is considered against God's will. They have also clearly stated it does not matter what my wishes or DH's wishes are if I am trouble they will sacrifice me for the baby. They also will not honor living wills. I was terrified during my pregnancy that something would happen and I'd be taken to CHI Mercy instead of Methodist. They will terminate doctors for prescribing BC for ANY reason. Gynos were getting around the rules by prescribing it for "medical reasons" so the hospital system cracked down and there are NO exceptions for prescribing BC. They are losing doctors and patients left and right because of this but in a lot of areas, especially rural areas, you are screwed because they own every hospital in town. OTOH- isn't it forcing religious beliefs on the Roman Catholic hospitals if we dictate that they must provide BC pills and decises and sterilization? (I was raised RC and I'm an Episcopalian because I believe in access to reliable BC and sterilizations.)
There are also people who have religious beliefs against vaccinations, doctors who won't treat homosexual/trans patients because it is "against their religion" etc. Where do we draw the line? You are a medical professional, you should provide medical care so long as it does not violate MEDICAL ethics to do so. If your religious beliefs are so precarious that they are threatened by a patient taking birth control or being homosexual or wanting their child vaccinated then don't be a freaking medical professional. Just picking out a few random points: ::There are also people who have religious beliefs against vaccinations, doctors who won't treat homosexual/trans patients because it is "against their religion" etc. Where do we draw the line?:: I think one place you draw the line is not having it on a doctor by doctor basis. I think it makes a lot more sense that if you ARE going to limit things, it be at the organizational level where it can be clearly conveyed to patients/potential patients. I think the other place the line gets drawn is that you can't discriminate on the basis of protected classes. It's discrimination of a protected class to say "I won't treat a homosexual". It's not discrimination of a protected class to say "I won't perform this procedure on anyone". I think the other thing to take into account is that doctors are not there to simply write up what patients want. Doctors have their own opinion on best practices. One doctor might say "Yeah, I'll give you a prescription for a potent painkiller for this" while another might hear the exact same thing and say "I don't think that's warranted". That's where I see a lot of things like birth control going. It doesn't exactly fall into a medical NEED...or at least the extent it becomes a NEED is when you say "I want it" (which again, doesn't really signify a need as I think of it). I do think there is/should be more leeway for refusing to do things that aren't actually medically necessary...and especially if those things aren't immediate (i.e. I'm dying and need antibiotics NOW is a lot different than I want birth control pills and if you won't do it then I have to go to someone else for it tomorrow instead). If an entire organization (meaning hospital) refuses to do a certain medical thing, then an entire population may have to live with that. Given that in many areas there is only one hospital. I think the opposite of your suggestion. As a public business, you must provide all the services. If one doctor won't do it, then you get reassigned to the doctor who does not have a religious excuse. As far as not doing what a patient asks - it is fine if a doctor says 'that isn't appropriate medical treatment' and doctors can have varying opinions on that, but if I am asking for something appropriate and the doctor says "My God doesn't allow that, go home and pray" that is not good care. Sure doctors don't always have to do what patients want, but their choices should be based on medical science, not made up sky-man.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Nov 4, 2019 16:13:31 GMT -5
Yes, this is a big issue if the only in-network hospitals are Roman Catholic. When my nephew was born 35 years ago, My DS and DSIL decided they were done- they had another boy and they'd had a stillbirth in between. She chose to give birth at the non-sectarian hospital because she wanted a tubal ligation before she left the hospital. OTOH- isn't it forcing religious beliefs on the Roman Catholic hospitals if we dictate that they must provide BC pills and decises and sterilization? (I was raised RC and I'm an Episcopalian because I believe in access to reliable BC and sterilizations.) No easy answer. The answer is for them to not build a hospital then. Hospitals, at the very least, should all be declared public businesses and and such serve everyone with every procedure. If you want religion to rule every aspect of your business - have fun running your church as that's the only business that should be run based on religious rule. Would it be ok for a hospital to refuse to give treatment for sickle cell anemia under some religious reasoning? I agree hospitals and healthcare should be public, but I read somewhere that the Catholic Church actually invented hospitals, which is why they control so many. (I am Catholic, yet I do not like the Catholic Church in charge of all hospital care in my city. I don't agree with all their rules.)
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 4, 2019 16:26:01 GMT -5
Just picking out a few random points: ::There are also people who have religious beliefs against vaccinations, doctors who won't treat homosexual/trans patients because it is "against their religion" etc. Where do we draw the line?:: I think one place you draw the line is not having it on a doctor by doctor basis. I think it makes a lot more sense that if you ARE going to limit things, it be at the organizational level where it can be clearly conveyed to patients/potential patients. I think the other place the line gets drawn is that you can't discriminate on the basis of protected classes. It's discrimination of a protected class to say "I won't treat a homosexual". It's not discrimination of a protected class to say "I won't perform this procedure on anyone". I think the other thing to take into account is that doctors are not there to simply write up what patients want. Doctors have their own opinion on best practices. One doctor might say "Yeah, I'll give you a prescription for a potent painkiller for this" while another might hear the exact same thing and say "I don't think that's warranted". That's where I see a lot of things like birth control going. It doesn't exactly fall into a medical NEED...or at least the extent it becomes a NEED is when you say "I want it" (which again, doesn't really signify a need as I think of it). I do think there is/should be more leeway for refusing to do things that aren't actually medically necessary...and especially if those things aren't immediate (i.e. I'm dying and need antibiotics NOW is a lot different than I want birth control pills and if you won't do it then I have to go to someone else for it tomorrow instead). If an entire organization (meaning hospital) refuses to do a certain medical thing, then an entire population may have to live with that. Given that in many areas there is only one hospital.I think the opposite of your suggestion. As a public business, you must provide all the services. If one doctor won't do it, then you get reassigned to the doctor who does not have a religious excuse. As far as not doing what a patient asks - it is fine if a doctor says 'that isn't appropriate medical treatment' and doctors can have varying opinions on that, but if I am asking for something appropriate and the doctor says "My God doesn't allow that, go home and pray" that is not good care. Sure doctors don't always have to do what patients want, but their choices should be based on medical science, not made up sky-man. Then you go to a different hospital, or you move. In many areas there are NO hospitals, those people find a way to make it work...not to mention that it opens up a whole opportunity for providers to move in that WILL provide the services. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "public business". To your point about reassigning doctors...what do you do in the cases you reference of limited hospitals/workers...and there's nobody to reassign you to?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 4, 2019 16:29:38 GMT -5
1. Religious objections have no place in our secular society. If it's offensive to YOUR religion, then don't do it. 2. Nobody is going to FORCE Catholic doctors to perform PAS. That's ridiculous. Does anyone force a thoracic surgeon to do a knee replacement? Does anyone force a gynecologist to to do cataract removal? 1. Of course they do...because religious objections are simply a methodology for determining right and wrong. It doesn't mean they need to carry any additional weight, or that governments should put doctrine in place of laws...but whether someone says "I think this is wrong because my religion says it is" or "I think this is wrong because I experienced it" or "I think this is wrong because I had a dream about it". Otherwise you're essentially saying "nobody who identifies with a religion can ever have an opinion on laws"...because those opinions are clearly derived in some part from their religion (just like opinions will be derived in some part based on your upbringing, where you live, etc). You can't separate out "this is a religious objection" vs "this is something I just think is wrong". Those things are intertwined for anyone who is actually devout in a religion (I'm not). 2. It doesn't sound like you know how physician assisted suicides work. You're talking as if you are under the misguided notion that it's a specialization such as a knee replacement...it's not. PAS could be done by literally anyone who can prescribe drugs that taken in large enough amounts will kill you (typically things which won't hurt as they do). 1. The Association of Catholic Bishops aren't just voicing their opinions. They're trying to overturn the law. Not going to happen. 2. It doesn't sound like YOU know how it works. Protecting the right of providers to act according to their beliefs and values Not all health care providers will be comfortable with medical assistance in dying. The federal practice may not be consistent with a provider's beliefs and values. The federal legislation does not force any person to provide or help to provide medical assistance in dying.
Provincial and territorial governments have the responsibility for determining how and where health care services are provided. They may also make policies around where medical assistance in dying can take place as long as they do not conflict with the Criminal Code. www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.html
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Nov 4, 2019 16:33:48 GMT -5
The answer is for them to not build a hospital then. Hospitals, at the very least, should all be declared public businesses and and such serve everyone with every procedure. If you want religion to rule every aspect of your business - have fun running your church as that's the only business that should be run based on religious rule. Would it be ok for a hospital to refuse to give treatment for sickle cell anemia under some religious reasoning? I agree hospitals and healthcare should be public, but I read somewhere that the Catholic Church actually invented hospitals, which is why they control so many. (I am Catholic, yet I do not like the Catholic Church in charge of all hospital care in my city. I don't agree with all their rules.) Interesting, but not entirely surprised given how much money and control the church has had in the past.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,401
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 4, 2019 16:35:19 GMT -5
If an entire organization (meaning hospital) refuses to do a certain medical thing, then an entire population may have to live with that. Given that in many areas there is only one hospital.I think the opposite of your suggestion. As a public business, you must provide all the services. If one doctor won't do it, then you get reassigned to the doctor who does not have a religious excuse. As far as not doing what a patient asks - it is fine if a doctor says 'that isn't appropriate medical treatment' and doctors can have varying opinions on that, but if I am asking for something appropriate and the doctor says "My God doesn't allow that, go home and pray" that is not good care. Sure doctors don't always have to do what patients want, but their choices should be based on medical science, not made up sky-man. Then you go to a different hospital, or you move. In many areas there are NO hospitals, those people find a way to make it work...not to mention that it opens up a whole opportunity for providers to move in that WILL provide the services. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "public business". To your point about reassigning doctors...what do you do in the cases you reference of limited hospitals/workers...and there's nobody to reassign you to? I guess those patients will either wait to see the doctor, or quit their job, sell their house, uproot their family and move to a new town that has a good hospital.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 4, 2019 16:38:09 GMT -5
1. Of course they do...because religious objections are simply a methodology for determining right and wrong. It doesn't mean they need to carry any additional weight, or that governments should put doctrine in place of laws...but whether someone says "I think this is wrong because my religion says it is" or "I think this is wrong because I experienced it" or "I think this is wrong because I had a dream about it". Otherwise you're essentially saying "nobody who identifies with a religion can ever have an opinion on laws"...because those opinions are clearly derived in some part from their religion (just like opinions will be derived in some part based on your upbringing, where you live, etc). You can't separate out "this is a religious objection" vs "this is something I just think is wrong". Those things are intertwined for anyone who is actually devout in a religion (I'm not). 2. It doesn't sound like you know how physician assisted suicides work. You're talking as if you are under the misguided notion that it's a specialization such as a knee replacement...it's not. PAS could be done by literally anyone who can prescribe drugs that taken in large enough amounts will kill you (typically things which won't hurt as they do). 1. The Association of Catholic Bishops aren't just voicing their opinions. They're trying to overturn the law. Not going to happen. 2. It doesn't sound like YOU know how it works. Protecting the right of providers to act according to their beliefs and values Not all health care providers will be comfortable with medical assistance in dying. The federal practice may not be consistent with a provider's beliefs and values. The federal legislation does not force any person to provide or help to provide medical assistance in dying.
Provincial and territorial governments have the responsibility for determining how and where health care services are provided. They may also make policies around where medical assistance in dying can take place as long as they do not conflict with the Criminal Code. www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.htmlI didn't ask if Canadian law DOES force Catholics to perform PAS...I asked if YOU thought it should, since you think religious excuses for not performing medical procedures is not a good thing. And if you don't think they should have to, the question is why are some medical procedures ok for people to opt out of for religious reasons and some are not. And of course they're trying to overturn the law. That's what people do when they don't agree with laws. The point isn't whether it's going to happen, you're arguing they should even be allowed to disagree and try to change things. Of course they should, everyone should have that right...it doesn't mean they'll be successful. Do you feel that everyone should be silenced in their opinions? Or just people who disagree with you?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 4, 2019 16:39:16 GMT -5
Then you go to a different hospital, or you move. In many areas there are NO hospitals, those people find a way to make it work...not to mention that it opens up a whole opportunity for providers to move in that WILL provide the services. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "public business". To your point about reassigning doctors...what do you do in the cases you reference of limited hospitals/workers...and there's nobody to reassign you to? I guess those patients will either wait to see the doctor, or quit their job, sell their house, uproot their family and move to a new town that has a good hospital. That's what I'd suggest for anyone living in a location where they don't like the services available in that area. Unless their market is profitable enough to sustain someone willing to offer more services.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Nov 4, 2019 16:39:56 GMT -5
CHI is in trouble here because they have wheeled women out into the hall way while having miscarriages because to intervene is considered against God's will. They have also clearly stated it does not matter what my wishes or DH's wishes are if I am trouble they will sacrifice me for the baby. They also will not honor living wills. I was terrified during my pregnancy that something would happen and I'd be taken to CHI Mercy instead of Methodist. They will terminate doctors for prescribing BC for ANY reason. Gynos were getting around the rules by prescribing it for "medical reasons" so the hospital system cracked down and there are NO exceptions for prescribing BC. They are losing doctors and patients left and right because of this but in a lot of areas, especially rural areas, you are screwed because they own every hospital in town. OTOH- isn't it forcing religious beliefs on the Roman Catholic hospitals if we dictate that they must provide BC pills and decises and sterilization? (I was raised RC and I'm an Episcopalian because I believe in access to reliable BC and sterilizations.)
There are also people who have religious beliefs against vaccinations, doctors who won't treat homosexual/trans patients because it is "against their religion" etc. Where do we draw the line? You are a medical professional, you should provide medical care so long as it does not violate MEDICAL ethics to do so. If your religious beliefs are so precarious that they are threatened by a patient taking birth control or being homosexual or wanting their child vaccinated then don't be a freaking medical professional. Just picking out a few random points: ::There are also people who have religious beliefs against vaccinations, doctors who won't treat homosexual/trans patients because it is "against their religion" etc. Where do we draw the line?:: I think one place you draw the line is not having it on a doctor by doctor basis. I think it makes a lot more sense that if you ARE going to limit things, it be at the organizational level where it can be clearly conveyed to patients/potential patients. I think the other place the line gets drawn is that you can't discriminate on the basis of protected classes. It's discrimination of a protected class to say "I won't treat a homosexual". It's not discrimination of a protected class to say "I won't perform this procedure on anyone". I think the other thing to take into account is that doctors are not there to simply write up what patients want. Doctors have their own opinion on best practices. One doctor might say "Yeah, I'll give you a prescription for a potent painkiller for this" while another might hear the exact same thing and say "I don't think that's warranted". That's where I see a lot of things like birth control going. It doesn't exactly fall into a medical NEED...or at least the extent it becomes a NEED is when you say "I want it" (which again, doesn't really signify a need as I think of it). I do think there is/should be more leeway for refusing to do things that aren't actually medically necessary...and especially if those things aren't immediate (i.e. I'm dying and need antibiotics NOW is a lot different than I want birth control pills and if you won't do it then I have to go to someone else for it tomorrow instead). It might be discrimination, but it's a legally allowed discrimination in some places. Or at least often overlooked discrimination. www.advocate.com/politics/2018/3/22/when-doctors-morality-leads-dead-lgbt-peoplewww.vice.com/en_us/article/j5vwgg/doctors-refuse-to-treat-trans-patients-more-often-than-you-think (no necessarily homosexuals, but some vein) But it's not just them. Pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions to heterosexuals too www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/can-pharmacist-legally-deny-patient-prescription-it-depends-n894871 You are also completely ignoring the fact that many in this country live in medical deserts. There is no going to someone else. The someone else can be hours away.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 4, 2019 16:47:47 GMT -5
Just picking out a few random points: ::There are also people who have religious beliefs against vaccinations, doctors who won't treat homosexual/trans patients because it is "against their religion" etc. Where do we draw the line?:: I think one place you draw the line is not having it on a doctor by doctor basis. I think it makes a lot more sense that if you ARE going to limit things, it be at the organizational level where it can be clearly conveyed to patients/potential patients. I think the other place the line gets drawn is that you can't discriminate on the basis of protected classes. It's discrimination of a protected class to say "I won't treat a homosexual". It's not discrimination of a protected class to say "I won't perform this procedure on anyone". I think the other thing to take into account is that doctors are not there to simply write up what patients want. Doctors have their own opinion on best practices. One doctor might say "Yeah, I'll give you a prescription for a potent painkiller for this" while another might hear the exact same thing and say "I don't think that's warranted". That's where I see a lot of things like birth control going. It doesn't exactly fall into a medical NEED...or at least the extent it becomes a NEED is when you say "I want it" (which again, doesn't really signify a need as I think of it). I do think there is/should be more leeway for refusing to do things that aren't actually medically necessary...and especially if those things aren't immediate (i.e. I'm dying and need antibiotics NOW is a lot different than I want birth control pills and if you won't do it then I have to go to someone else for it tomorrow instead). It might be discrimination, but it's a legally allowed discrimination in some places. Or at least often overlooked discrimination. www.advocate.com/politics/2018/3/22/when-doctors-morality-leads-dead-lgbt-peoplewww.vice.com/en_us/article/j5vwgg/doctors-refuse-to-treat-trans-patients-more-often-than-you-think (no necessarily homosexuals, but some vein) But it's not just them. Pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions to heterosexuals too www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/can-pharmacist-legally-deny-patient-prescription-it-depends-n894871 You are also completely ignoring the fact that many in this country live in medical deserts. There is no going to someone else. The someone else can be hours away. I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it's your choice to live there. It's my choice to live where I don't get enough sunlight to be healthy, it's my choice to live where earthquakes strike that might kill me, it's my choice to live where the ground isn't fertile enough to grow my own food, it's my choice to live somewhere that doesn't have the healthcare options I want. The someone else COULD be hours away. We aren't talking about trees who are tied to a plot of land, we're talking about people who have freedom of choice in where they live. And it is discrimination, in the talk of "where's the line", I think discrimination of a legally protected class draws a pretty specific line (IMO). Whether it's the right one or not...that seems to be the basis of this discussion to a large extent. I do think it's a pretty specific line that COULD be made though (which is separate from how people get around it, look the other way, etc).
|
|