Religion
Related: About this forumACLU: The Federal Government Must Stop Catholic Hospitals From Harming More Women
But in this particular story, the hospital is Catholic, and the medical staff refused to provide an abortion based on Catholic directives that dictate what care can be provided in Catholic hospitals. Instead of providing her with appropriate care, the hospital kept her for six hours watching her bleed. They finally discharged her to the parking lot so that a relative could drive her to another hospital to get the care she needed. But by that time, she had lost so much blood that she needed a transfusion of seven pints and emergency surgery.
This story is real, and so is this woman (who is thankfully alive). Her story is one of several complaints against Catholic hospitals which take billions of taxpayer dollars to serve the public - that have been lodged with the federal agency that oversees hospitals.
We know that there are more complaints, including the one filed by Faith Groesbeck, a public health researcher, who discovered several stories of women denied proper emergency care during miscarriages at one Catholic hospital in Michigan. One woman described in Ms. Groesbecks complaint was turned away by the Catholic hospital twice while miscarrying and given only Tylenol for a potentially deadly infection. The woman ended up miscarrying by herself on the toilet at home.
--snip--
Hospitals violate the law when they refuse to provide emergency medical care or provide information about a patients condition. The federal government should systematically investigate Catholic hospitals and hold them accountable. No woman should rush to the hospital and fear for her life because of religious rules that force hospitals to turn patients away without providing the proper care.
If you have been denied proper care at a Catholic hospital, wed like to hear from you.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/federal-government-must-stop-catholic-hospitals-harming-more-women
procon
(15,805 posts)What that hospital did was nothing less than torture. We wouldn't mistreat a dog the way they made that poor woman suffer. And for what? That imposed their religious convictions on her like it was some medieval Inquisition.
The only way to stop the persecution of women is to hit these misogynistic organizations where it really hurts, take away the money! No more government funds, no grants, no tax breaks, no Medicare patients, no Medicaid patients, no federal reimbursement for the indigent or first responder services. Cut off the money train.
If they aren't a full service hospital that's fine, they can specialize like many facilities do, and treat men only. Many smaller hospitals don't offer obstetrical services, but in an emergency pregnant woman still go to the closest ER. While that hospital might not be equipped to treat them, they still make every effort to get them medically stable so they can be quickly transferred by ambulance to the appropriate hospital.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)The apologists hate all criticism of their beloved RCC and its dictates. No matter the cost, apparently.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It's disgusting.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)that Catholic hospitals routinely harm women due to doctrine?
The former should surprise no one. As to the latter, no, I do not buy that Catholic hospitals routinely harm women due to doctrine.
I repeat, if that were true, they would not now be accredited.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Faith Groesbeck mentions five.
The article then states: "We assume there are other complaints that we dont know about yet."
Catholic hospitals admit 5,000,000 patients a year, Presumably half are women.
No I don't buy cleanhippie's fervent belief that Catholic hospitals routinely harm women.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)is due to one of the patients fighting back in a lawsuit. We don't know how consistent the federal government is in enforcing its own rules on hospitals, nor how many complaints actually exist, hence the FOIA lawsuit.
Its not like this is a new phenomenon, nor something we shouldn't be concerned about:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636458/
Not to mention that most of these hospital systems signed on to the USCCB's Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. Of particular interest is part 4, around Directive 45 and below, which are the ones that concerns Pregnancy and Abortion the most:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]45. Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or
the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose
sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its
moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo.
Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the
principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be
concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers
Now this directive defines abortion, but it does it in two ways, as either destruction of the fetus or termination of the pregnancy through removal of the fetus before viability. This is a huge problem, forget double-effect, it threw that out the window. Even more disturbing is the second half, which seems to be a directive to dissuade or discourage women from seeking therapeutic abortions from outside providers.
Then they decide to contradict themselves here:
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]47. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a
proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they
cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of
the unborn child.
This directly contradicts directive 45, and directive 48 as well:
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]48. In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.31
Part of the problem is what constitutes a "direct abortion" or not, its undefined, I guess its supposed to be left up to the medical practitioners as to what constitutes a "direct abortion". But considering that, in the case of extrauterine(ectopic) pregnancy, the removal of the fetus IS the way to prevent injury or death of a woman, apparently, even so called "double effect" doesn't apply, I guess they should just die or something. Apparently they can't even refer patients to hospitals that will treat their life threatening condition. Seems to me that, given this confusion, that this is a situation ripe for abuse and neglect.
The document is also silent on fetuses that are no longer viable or even biologically alive. Abortion is, according to the document, the termination of the pregnancy OR fetus. So the hospitals are in quite a bind if the fetus isn't viable, but the pregnancy is ongoing. I guess they should just wait for sepsis to set in or something, to make things "proportional".
Honestly, these sections that I read are appalling, hospitals should be, first and foremost, concerned about the well being of patients, all other considerations should be secondary, if they should be considered at all.
edhopper
(33,667 posts)isn't it?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Don't be afraid to express yourself.
rug
(82,333 posts)Those directives have been in place for some time. As has the hospitals' accreditation.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)confusion that can, and has, delayed care.
rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)if the confusion and negligence is widespread, then it should be examined closely, in addition, just having one case is one too many, these hospitals need to be regulated on standards of care where found to be negligent, even if its in violation of the USCCB directives, which have no place in a medical setting.
rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)needs to be brought to light, and hopefully they can be regulated so that incidents of neglect don't occur again.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's inaccurate, misleading and posted primarily to advance an agenda.
And that agenda here is not to promote women's rights.
The OP's history is to routinely post anti-religious posts in general, anti-Catholic posts in particular, because, plainly, he detests religion and, more coyly, religious people who challenge him. It's trolling.
The destructive part of it is that it prevents any rational discussion of the impact of religion on health care. The goal is not to critique, understand or protect but simply to spread a prejudice that existed before Catholic hospitals and would continue if every Catholic hospital closed.
It's rank dishonesty. If you think my assessment is harsh, just read his next five OPs.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)being bought out or merged with Catholic health systems, this is a cause for concern, particularly if they follow the directives of the USCCB, as atrocious as those are. The effects have already being felt, the question is whether its widespread or not. Its not prejudice when its admitted outright that certain medical conditions/situations will not be dealt with in a responsible manner due to interference by religious authorities.
Frankly speaking, all Hospitals with any type of emergency services should be able to perform therapeutic abortions as needed without restrictions brought on by religious edicts or directives. Patient needs should be paramount, period.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Or anyone else that dares to keep shining the light on the RCC. His agenda? Deflect and defend at any cost.
rug
(82,333 posts)If you did, I'd have no problem with you. Well, other than the obvious.
But instead, you post crap like a woman killed her child because she read the Bible. I don't think you're capable of describing the RCC because you don't know it. You don't want to know it. You simply hate it, its members, and anything to do with it.
Your posting history is as uninformed about your target as it is bigoted towards it.
And I don't give zero fucks about what the RCC does. I do give zero fucks about what you think of it.
So, keep posting bullshit, cleanhippie. I'll keep correcting you.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Feed that last word compulsion. Im done with you.
rug
(82,333 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Last edited Thu May 26, 2016, 08:31 AM - Edit history (1)
I see two.
I detect large amounts of Cathosplaining in this sector.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Just deflection, snark, and defense of the indefensible. The Catholic apologists on this board (the ones who haven't slunk away in intellectual shame) have little else any more. But their indoctrination requires it of them.