Catholic Hospitals

[zoogs]

I do agree that private religious institutions should not be interfered with.

 

However, I also think doctors and hospitals need to be able to execute their medical responsibilities to their patients without interference from religious doctrine.

 

The bottom line is if your only option, or closest option, or only personally known option is a Catholic Hospital, then people are going to suffer poor outcomes as a result. Now, that isn't true everywhere at least in this country. And I hope on all fronts it becomes substantially less true. I completely disagree that there are no costs involved. We shouldn't have to manage around this doctrinal interference, when (particularly in emergencies or situations that don't start as emergencies but may well develop into them) patients hang in the balance.

[NUance]

FWIW, I *don't* subscribe to the Catholic views concerning early term fetuses. That said, I also don't think Catholic hospitals should be forced to perform procedures that the Catholic church considers to be murder. (If it was a common situation, it might change my position. But the instances where this is life threatening seem to be very rare.) I think Atbone's suggestions sound reasonable—creating a more efficient means of transporting patients to where they can receive the procedure's they need.

[Atbone95]

I do agree that private religious institutions should not be interfered with.

 

However, I also think doctors and hospitals need to be able to execute their medical responsibilities to their patients without interference from religious doctrine.

 

The bottom line is if your only option, or closest option, or only personally known option is a Catholic Hospital, then people are going to suffer poor outcomes as a result. Now, that isn't true everywhere at least in this country. And I hope on all fronts it becomes substantially less true. I completely disagree that there are no costs involved. We shouldn't have to manage around this doctrinal interference, when (particularly in emergencies or situations that don't start as emergencies but may well develop into them) patients hang in the balance.

I wasn't saying no cost in general - what I meant was the hospital should be required to do it's best to care for the patient, agreed. If they can't provide that service specifically because they choose not to, they should be required to provide emergency transport to a facility that will at no cost to the patient.

 

Just something that seems common sense to me. This allows them to follow their religious obligations while still maintaining their duty to pursue the best interest of the patient.

 

Edit: ** Provide the transport in an emergency, life-threatening situation. If the person is fine, they should be responsible for going somewhere that will help them.

[knapplc]

Maybe the Catholic church should get out of the business of providing medical services. Hospitals should serve their surrounding population. Americans shouldn't have to choose health care based on religious principles - theirs or someone else's.

[Atbone95]

Hey, Knapp has started following me around on here hi buddy

[Atbone95]

Maybe the Catholic church should get out of the business of providing medical services. Hospitals should serve their surrounding population. Americans shouldn't have to choose health care based on religious principles - theirs or someone else's.

As a private institution, the Catholic church should do whatever it pleases. They should serve whoever they please. Catholics should have the option to choose health care based on their religious principles if that is what they want.

 

No one is saying we should force people to use a Catholic hospital. If there aren't already, I think there should be restrictions that prohibit a Catholic hospital from being the only hospital within an x mile radius so that public hospitals remain the main provider.

[zoogs]

^ Yeah, that's the thing. If you're going to operate as a hospital in this country, you should be required to have certain responsibilities -- including medical best practice with zero religious oversight, IMO.

 

Atbone, what you're describing works best if there are teleportation machines to hospitals with waiting staffs, beds, and zero red tape in the transfer. In practice, it doesn't -- and can't -- work out that way.

 

If there aren't already, I think there should be restrictions that prohibit a Catholic hospital from being the only hospital within an x mile radius so that public hospitals remain the main provider.

I don't think this is the reality. If I recall from the Full Frontal segment, it's about 1 in 6 acute care beds that belong to Catholic-run or affiliated hospitals now. In some states they are far more prevalent than 1/6. In some areas they are the sole providers. And for everything other than where religious doctrine steps in to snip medical advice out of the picture, they might offer exceptional care, so they *would* be the place people turn, not expecting to encounter an issue.

[knapplc]

I'd love to live in a sunshine & daisies world where I have the time & convenience to choose which hospital I go to. Unfortunately, in an emergency (when people mostly need hospitals) you don't have that luxury. You go where the nearest medical facility is.

 

If your only nearby medical facility is based on a religion, suddenly you're at the mercy of that religion's principles. And that's not OK.

 

This idea seems perfectly fine to Christians. Until they get shipped via ambulance to a Muslim hospital under the tenets of Sharia law. Then what? Everyone OK with that?

[Atbone95]

The only use-case I could see where an emergency could be hindered by Catholic principles is this, in the instance where a mother needs to have an abortion for a medical emergency.

 

Getting condoms or birth control pills isn't an emergency. Am I missing something?

[zoogs]

We are talking about the "use-case" where mothers encounter an unexpected emergency where they need to have access to the kind of care a Catholic hospital would refuse to provide.

 

There's a separate discussion we could have about access to contraception. In my perspective, refusing to provide access for religious reasons is also misguided policy that feeds into this problem of unwanted pregnancies that the same Hospitals will refuse to service. The Catholic Church's stance on birth control is just something I can't wrap my head around.

 

But yes, that's not an emergency. From a public health policy standpoint, it is still a question of access, I think. I'd like to see more people be able to get access. And that's an area where I do think it's relatively fair and painless to invent workarounds (at public cost, inevitably) to make sure that access is there for everybody.

[NUance]

Maybe the Catholic church should get out of the business of providing medical services. Hospitals should serve their surrounding population.

You're suggesting Catholic hospitals be shut down because there is one somewhat uncommon situation where their religious beliefs interfere with a particular treatment? Are you really suggesting this? lol

 

 

Americans shouldn't have to choose health care based on religious principles - theirs or someone else's.

 

As Americans we are free to go to any hospital we want.

 

OTOH, Americans shouldn't be forced to act in a manner that contravenes their religious beliefs.

[zoogs]

I think what he is suggesting is that hospitals be required to act as hospitals.

 

Americans are not free to go to any hospital they want. Some Americans are. Others are not.

 

What's the threshold on tolerance for the bad outcomes arising from these 'uncommon' situations? And how uncommon are they?

 

For me, being in the domain of medical care is the game-changer here. If half the grocery stores in the country stop selling beef because the prevalent religion forbids eating cows, then, you know, whatever. (As long as those church-run grocery stores aren't nonprofit, I suppose?)

 

By the way, guys -- this is a remarkably good and fruitful discussion. Thanks, especially to you guys, NUance, and Atbone95.

[knapplc]

 

Maybe the Catholic church should get out of the business of providing medical services. Hospitals should serve their surrounding population.

You're suggesting Catholic hospitals be shut down because there is one somewhat uncommon situation where their religious beliefs interfere with a particular treatment? Are you really suggesting this? lol

 

 

Americans shouldn't have to choose health care based on religious principles - theirs or someone else's.

As Americans we are free to go to any hospital we want.

 

OTOH, Americans shouldn't be forced to act in a manner that contravenes their religious beliefs.

 

 

So you're cool with going to a hospital under Sharia Law?

 

Christians in America have a really bad habit of thinking the only religious freedoms that could affect them are Christian freedoms. This will not always be a Christian-dominated nation. What freedoms are you ready to allow other religions over your life, or the lives of your loved ones? As this country grows more diverse these are questions you're going to have to answer.

[Atbone95]

 

Maybe the Catholic church should get out of the business of providing medical services. Hospitals should serve their surrounding population.

You're suggesting Catholic hospitals be shut down because there is one somewhat uncommon situation where their religious beliefs interfere with a particular treatment? Are you really suggesting this? lol

 

 

Americans shouldn't have to choose health care based on religious principles - theirs or someone else's.

As Americans we are free to go to any hospital we want.

 

OTOH, Americans shouldn't be forced to act in a manner that contravenes their religious beliefs.

 

Thank God, I've been pretty lonely in this forum over the last two days. Nice to see NUance, a fresh wind in this dark, desolate place.

[NUance]

Obviously there is no threshold. I mentioned the rarity of this situation to emphasize that, even if a private institution encounters a rare instance in which religious beliefs lead them act in a certain manner, there will be people who feel they should be forced to abstain from those beliefs. And some would rather see the private institution shut down instead of allowing them to practice according to their beliefs.

 

If a doctor feels that abortion is murder, should that doctor be required to perform abortions? If the owner of a hospital feels that abortion is murder, should that hospital be required to perform abortions?

 

(Again--I don't subscribe to all the beliefs that Catholics have. I just don't think they should be forced to act in a manner that goes against their beliefs.)