Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

[Elizabeth502]

I’m drawing the distinction because I wasn’t talking about consciences informed by other religions or arbitrary “strong moral codes”. No, you weren’t clear.

OK. In fairness, you weren’t clear to me in the direction of your question, either. I assumed we were addressing a Catholic audience (lurking & posting) relative to your earlier question about divine law.

 

[bookgirl32]

OK. In fairness, you weren’t clear to me in the direction of your question, either. I assumed we were addressing a Catholic audience (lurking & posting) relative to your earlier question about divine law.

Okay. So, just to clarify, this is me, addressing you, asking if you think a Catholic should uphold divine law to the best of their ability and understanding in any situation in spite of a contrary civic law?

To the best of their ability. As opposed to when they might lose their job, expose themselves to litigation, make another person mad, etc. etc. etc.

You know, kind of like when the apostles didn’t stop preaching the gospel in spite of being persecuted and thrown in jail. That sort of thing.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Okay. So, just to clarify, this is me, addressing you, asking if you think a Catholic should uphold divine law to the best of their ability and understanding in any situation in spite of a contrary civic law?

To the best of their ability. As opposed to when they might lose their job, expose themselves to litigation, make another person mad, etc. etc. etc.

You know, kind of like when the apostles didn’t stop preaching the gospel in spite of being persecuted and thrown in jail. That sort of thing.

Well, I thought I made it clear. But for the third time I will state that the answer to your question is Yes. Except that (as I explained), I myself – and I know I’m not alone – choose not to participate in any profession, occupation, specialty of an occupation, etc., in which I know that I will be up against moral conflicts of a significant and possibly regular nature. Thus (I participated in this debate on another thread), I could not become a criminal lawyer, because of the way criminal law is practiced in the U.S. It is not to condemn criminal lawyers; it’s to say that having almost become a lawyer 3 times, and having worked for several lawyers (including criminal lawyers) I know in a practical way some of the (what are to me) moral compromises. Similarly, I could not work in politics, because lies are expected so often, including lies which destroy the reputations & character of opponents. If I worked in medicine I would have trouble working in Ob-Gyn.

Personally, I don’t “recommend” specifically entering a field knowing that you will have major moral battles to engage in, and often. I mean battling superiors, the system itself, etc. (Not job advancement, embarrassment, discomfort, as the price of disagreement.) Because entire systems are very hard to break. I may be determined about many things, and an innovator in my own field, but the idea of choosing an occupation for the express purpose of opposing it, or with the express knowledge that confrontation will be common, is not something I believe is good for mental or emotional or even spiritual health. Perhaps you feel differently.

This is why it’s difficult to answer your question simply, because you seem to suggest that martyrdom is something to be relished & even sought. The path I would prefer to take is to associate with people and systems who share my moral code (even if those associates are not Catholic), whom I can trust to Do the Right Thing, whose word I believe, whose character I can vouch for, etc. I’m very selective about my colleagues and the settings in which I choose to work.

I’m not a career counselor, although I do other kinds of counseling & mentoring. But if I were, and if a young, eager person came to me and I happened to know he or she were both (1) interested in medicine, and (2) a conscientiously practicing Catholic, I would feel the need to inform him or her about the conflict elucidated by Bishop Olmstead about Catholic morality vs. medical ethics. I wouldn’t try to dissuade such a person; I would merely feel I needed to provide disclosure as to what is expected in secular hospitals, should he or she be interested in that line of work. I might encourage such a person to confine the search to a Catholic medical facility, one that he or she has checked out, so that initially this medical novice will feel comfortable, until he or she gains confidence.

I will add that Yes, I do know about conscience clauses, but it’s my understanding that there’s a lot of variability in how these are promoted and published. Again, the practical policies in a given setting may vary. There were a lot of things that I did on my last job which were opposed to some dishonest things that my boss wanted me to do. However, I had both the position to do this and the confidence (from experience) to do this. I calculated that he needed me much more than I needed the particular job, and thus it was a calculated gamble. What I would do is proceed according to my ethics, show him the positive result, and thereby convert him. I did it; it worked. I would still do it even if he later got angry about it, yes, because it was the right thing to do.

One problem I have with the whole ‘martyrdom’ appeal is that job suicide can be a Pyrrhic victory for Catholicism. If one believes that one can be a good moral influence, acting like a hothead “for the sake of the kingdom” is more likely to make you disappear than to allow you to stand your ground and continue to be a positive influence.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

Rence;7412530:

bookgirl32;7411586:

I would feel very uncomfortable if my apostolic leaders had spent all their time in med school and not seminary.

That’s what the so-called “ethics committee” is supposed to have been for. You seem to be of the opinion that the medical world operates in one sphere and the theological world in the other, and they need to leave eachother to their own “expertise”. Every academic discipline in the world, including all of the sciences, fall under the constraints of natural and divine law. These laws are the final “decision makers”.

I know non-Catholic patients “don’t care”. This doesn’t relieve the Church of performing it’s true roll as defined by God and infallibly revealed through the magisterium.

Do you realize your whole argument, if applied to the United States government, would require all judges to be medical professionals? Tell that to the justices of the supreme court and see what they say.

Medical knowledge falls under the rules of Natural and Divine Law. Not the other way around. Again, if what you’re stating were true all judges in medically associated legal cases would have to, at the rate you’re going, be doctors.

The Bishop has an entire diocesan medical board. Or did you miss that when you were listening to his statements or reading the articles quoting these doctors?

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

Rence;7412530:

bookgirl32;7411586:

I would feel very uncomfortable if my apostolic leaders had spent all their time in med school and not seminary.

That’s what the so-called “ethics committee” is supposed to have been for. You seem to be of the opinion that the medical world operates in one sphere and the theological world in the other, and they need to leave eachother to their own “expertise”. Every academic discipline in the world, including all of the sciences, fall under the constraints of natural and divine law. These laws are the final “decision makers”.

I know non-Catholic patients “don’t care”. This doesn’t relieve the Church of performing it’s true roll as defined by God and infallibly revealed through the magisterium.

Do you realize your whole argument, if applied to the United States government, would require all judges to be medical professionals? Tell that to the justices of the supreme court and see what they say.

Medical knowledge falls under the rules of Natural and Divine Law. Not the other way around. Again, if what you’re stating were true all judges in medically associated legal cases would have to, at the rate you’re going, be doctors.

The Bishop has an entire diocesan medical board. Or did you miss that when you were listening to his statements or reading the articles quoting these doctors?

And this article, from the National Catholic Register:
Hospital Stripped of ‘Catholic’ Seal

This quote is interesting (Fr. Ehrich is the Medical Ethics director for the Diocese):

It’s interesting to see that, according to the diocese (and one would hope a priest, who is an ethics director, would not out and out lie), the attempts to make it fit under “double effect” did not come around until the canon lawyers and theologians obtained by the hospital tried to do so. You’d think that there would be some record of this being the claim from the ethics committee at the hospital from the get go.

But, considering all the previous inconsistencies from CHW, I guess I’m not surprised.

The sad thing is, if false words and beliefs are repeated enough times, they will be taken as truth by the majority of people. For the past 40 to 50 years, much falsehood and re-interpretation of Catholic truths by progressive theologians and, even clergy have resulted in the mass confusion of beliefs by perhaps at least half of the folks claiming to be Catholic.

It is time for all the US Bishops to get together and uphold the absolute truths and teachings of the Church instead of being silent. A good house cleaning and dusting off of crosiers would do it.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery
PHOENIX – The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix stripped a major hospital of its affiliation with the church Tuesday because of a surgery that ended a woman’s pregnancy to save her life.

Bishop Thomas Olmsted called the 2009 procedure an abortion and said St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center - recognized internationally for its neurology and neurosurgery practices - violated ethical and religious directives of the national Conference of Catholic Bishops.
…

I just noticed the title of your thread is" Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over sugery." Any particulary reason for the word surgery and not abortion? Just curious.

 

[jenkiedad]

I just noticed the title of your thread is" Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over sugery." Any particulary reason for the word surgery and not abortion? Just curious.

The forum rules request that you use the title of the news story instead of what is often a more appropriate descriptive title.

See the “NEWS Rules” at the beginning of this section of the forum:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=516655

An excerpt:

“DO”

“The opening post MUST reference an article from a legitimate news source.”

***“The title of the thread should be the same as the title of the news article. This helps users find the article and lessens the chance of duplicate threads.” ***

"Avoid quoting from copyrighted works. Instead, paraphrase what is said and provide a link. If you do quote, limit it to a “fair use” excerpt (one to three paragraphs). "

"Provide a link to a publicly-available article so that readers can get more information. "

“DON’T”

"No blogs unless they link to a news article "

"No articles that make personal attacks or are in other ways inappropriate for the CA forums. "

"Threads that do not comply with this will be closed and/or moved. "

Hope this helps!

 

[LittleSoldier]

It is my belief that, as a Catholic, I cannot in good conscience remain out of careers in which I might end up in a position in which I am forced to choose between Divine Law and man-made law. In fact, those careers are the ones which need Catholics and Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut the most.

Martyrdom provides an enormous amount of grace, although I would call losing one’s job and/or being sued more of a persecution than martyrdom.

I would be so happy if I were allowed to lay down my life for God. I have already given Him my life - being killed for my belief in God and the teachings of the Catholic Church is the ultimate sacrifice that I, personally, can make. I include in martyrdom the laying down of my life in order to save another’s life and that is because it shows an understanding and acceptance of the sanctity of life and therefore falls under the realm of Divine Law.

I don’t think I will ever be called upon to be a martyr. But I have been persecuted for my faith and I welcome that persecution. All Catholics are members of the Church Militant (hence my user name) and should be willing to fight for Truth. Refusing to fight for Truth instead of actively fighting for it may be the easy way out for many.

I understand that we need to provide for our families and for ourselves. It’s difficult to fight when one’s children are hungry. Yet that is what we are called to do as Catholics. Fighting for God may be as simple as voting for a pro-life candidate and giving food to Food Share. We who can do more are blessed and I thank God for providing me with that blessing.

I am very proud of physicians who are Catholics and refuse to be involved with direct abortions, providing contraceptives, and performing sterilizations. Their moral strength and conviction makes them an inspiration to me.

 

[bookgirl32]

Well, I thought I made it clear. But for the third time I will state that the answer to your question is Yes. Except that (as I explained), I myself – and I know I’m not alone – choose not to participate in any profession, occupation, specialty of an occupation, etc., in which I know that I will be up against moral conflicts of a significant and possibly regular nature. Thus (I participated in this debate on another thread), I could not become a criminal lawyer, because of the way criminal law is practiced in the U.S. It is not to condemn criminal lawyers; it’s to say that having almost become a lawyer 3 times, and having worked for several lawyers (including criminal lawyers) I know in a practical way some of the (what are to me) moral compromises. Similarly, I could not work in politics, because lies are expected so often, including lies which destroy the reputations & character of opponents. If I worked in medicine I would have trouble working in Ob-Gyn.

Personally, I don’t “recommend” specifically entering a field knowing that you will have major moral battles to engage in, and often. I mean battling superiors, the system itself, etc. (Not job advancement, embarrassment, discomfort, as the price of disagreement.) Because entire systems are very hard to break. I may be determined about many things, and an innovator in my own field, but the idea of choosing an occupation for the express purpose of opposing it, or with the express knowledge that confrontation will be common, is not something I believe is good for mental or emotional or even spiritual health. Perhaps you feel differently.

And that’s your choice and that’s fine. But it could also possibly assume that 1)the medical field can never be changed by medicine practiced through a Catholic theological viewpoint, and this shouldn’t be attempted and 2)Catholics should at least consider avoiding a calling if their field is going to be “up against moral conflicts of a significant and regular nature”.

I’m glad that doctors like my own Catholic OB do see it as a calling and follow it regardless of the consequences. I don’t know if you’ve heard of Pope Paul VI Institute and Dr. Thomas Hilgers, but if he had chosen the path of least resistance and become, say, a radiologist, things like NaPro Technology wouldn’t be available to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

I believe that the practice of medicine can only benefit on all sides when practiced and researched from a truely Catholic perspective. No, I’m not saying all doctors should be forced or expected to do so. But if you let today’s culture successfully ostrecize Catholic medical professionals and thinking, then you lose the way God intended medicine to be practiced and researched in the first place.

Yes Bishop Olmsted mentioned that today, medical ethics and Catholic ethics are very different. But medical ethics should never have become so far disconnected and just because the world is what it is and our culture works like it does we shouldn’t just standby and allow them to be “hijacked” by secular values. I’m not saying everyone needs to be a martyr and enjoy putting themselves through difficulties. But I believe the development of Catholic medical professionals should be encouraged, not only to try to protect the medical field today but because of what they could bring to it that’s unique to any other approach. (Again, see Dr. Hilgers as an example).

This is why it’s difficult to answer your question simply, because you seem to suggest that martyrdom is something to be relished & even sought. The path I would prefer to take is to associate with people and systems who share my moral code (even if those associates are not Catholic), whom I can trust to Do the Right Thing, whose word I believe, whose character I can vouch for, etc. I’m very selective about my colleagues and the settings in which I choose to work.

And there is nothing wrong with not being the one to do so. But that’s different than saying that it doesn’t need to be done. It’s all a part of the evangelization we’re called to as Catholics.

I’m not a career counselor, although I do other kinds of counseling & mentoring. But if I were, and if a young, eager person came to me and I happened to know he or she were both (1) interested in medicine, and (2) a conscientiously practicing Catholic, I would feel the need to inform him or her about the conflict elucidated by Bishop Olmstead about Catholic morality vs. medical ethics. I wouldn’t try to dissuade such a person; I would merely feel I needed to provide disclosure as to what is expected in secular hospitals, should he or she be interested in that line of work. I might encourage such a person to confine the search to a Catholic medical facility, one that he or she has checked out, so that initially this medical novice will feel comfortable, until he or she gains confidence.

Again, I get what you’re saying, and I think it’s only fair to be honest with them. But also encourage them to be secure in the knowledge that, even though it seems like it, God hasn’t relenquished control and if they feel called to do something that seems like they’ll face resistance in that way, they very well might be called to do so.

One problem I have with the whole ‘martyrdom’ appeal is that job suicide can be a Pyrrhic victory for Catholicism. If one believes that one can be a good moral influence, acting like a hothead “for the sake of the kingdom” is more likely to make you disappear than to allow you to stand your ground and continue to be a positive influence.

When did I ever suggest “acting like a hothead”?

 

[Rence]

I would feel very uncomfortable if my apostolic leaders had spent all their time in med school and not seminary.

Yeah, so would I That’s why I go to a priest for spiritual advice and questions about my religion, and I go to a doctor for my physical health and questions about medicine.

That’s what the so-called “ethics committee” is supposed to have been for. You seem to be of the opinion that the medical world operates in one sphere and the theological world in the other, and they need to leave eachother to their own “expertise”. Every academic discipline in the world, including all of the sciences, fall under the constraints of natural and divine law. These laws are the final “decision makers”.

The medical world sometimes does operate in one sphere and the theological world in the other. For example, it was forbidden to dissect cadavers, however, eventually after much conflict, the medical world appealed to the “powers that be” about not having enough information without dissecting cadavers. Another example was that it used to be forbidden to cremate bodies. However, the medical world knew that in some instances it was imperitive to burn bodies to help stop the spread of disease.

I know non-Catholic patients “don’t care”. This doesn’t relieve the Church of performing it’s true roll as defined by God and infallibly revealed through the magisterium.

And yet, we cannot force people to be Catholic or to follow Catholic teachings, rules and laws. And because we cannot force people to be Catholic, we cannot enforce Catholic teachings, rules and laws on those who choose not to be Catholic, or who chose not to obey the rules of the Catholic Church.

Do you realize your whole argument, if applied to the United States government, would require all judges to be medical professionals? Tell that to the justices of the supreme court and see what they say.

My argument doesn’t require all judges to be medical professionals because they have tesimony available to them by the entire medical field. Expert witnesses are called on to testify in medical cases and that helps the judge to determine the case. In addition, there isn’t just one expert witness, but there can be a panel of witnesses. The problem with calling on testimony for religious cases is in the event that the witnesses are partial to Catholic teaching, rather than calling into reference both canon law and medical fact, and applying them to each other. We’re seeing this now in this case as we have Church lawyers and theologians on each side arguing about it, both sides with medical knowledge but of differing opinion because of interpretation of Church law. Keep in mind we’re no longer forbidden to cremate bodies. And we’re also allowed to dissect bodies. And the earth is not only round, but not the center of the universe. So obviously interpretation of the teachings changes with additional examination of the evidence provided. The problem is getting everyone on the same page at the same time.

However, a judge hearing a secular case calls in expert witnesses representing both sides of an arguement, sometimes a whole panel, which comprises individuals with varied backgrounds, and most likely will not include Catholic-only witnesses, but probably a few representing many different backgrounds.

The Bishop has an entire diocesan medical board. Or did you miss that when you were listening to his statements or reading the articles quoting these doctors?

I believe I mentioned the utilization of doctors. I said: “I’m sure that the Bishop had counsel by people with not only a medical degree but with experience in the field helping him come to his decision, or at least I hope he did.” However, what also didn’t escape me was the medical opinions that conflicted with his decision from other Catholic lawyers and doctors.

 

[Rence]

Are you insinuating that no Catholic hospital, anywhere, can do this? Mine did. I was informed of their practices beforehand at the live birth of my son. I was informed that, since I was having a c-section, a tubal ligation was not an option in their hospital and that they do not, under any circumstances, perform abortions. And I was even informed that, since I was having a D&C done there on my miscarried baby, that if the baby (fetal tissue) were left with the hospital that it would be treated respectfully and buried. If I wanted something different or I didn’t wish for it to be treated as a baby with the dignity of full human rights, I was informed, on paper work that I had to sign, that I had to request the tissue be given to me when pathology was done with it.

This is my argument, which you have stated beautifully, thank you You were INFORMED and had to sign a consent. You were informed “beforehand” about what they were going to do, and not do, according to the teachings of the Church for a routine medical procedure for which you went to that hospital. What I am talking about is accepting emergency patients with the intent to treat them but limiting the treatment to the confines of Catholic teaching and NOT disclosing that fact to the patient BEFORE there is no turning back for them. It is unacceptable to inform the patient that you’re not going to follow physician treatment orders, and watch them die rather than help them live, after they are in no position to go elsewhere or do anything about it. The patient has the right to know.

You know, wouldn’t you think, that if CHW were really committed to being Catholic, and had every intention of following the directives, that they would take responsibility for this? That they would do their best to set themselves up legally so that they could follow what they claimed to believe in? Several reports state that the woman and her family were never informed that the hospital had every intention of complying with the directives and that abortion would not be an option in any circumstance. And she had been to the hospital multiple times.

I’ve never been informed of these things, and I’ve had surgery at a Catholic hospital three times (once through the emergency room). I’ve never been informed that they were going to follow canon law, rather than medicine and that if canon law and medicine conflicted they would follow canon law and deny me the prescribed medican treatments ordered. For my last surgery, I refused a pregnancy test, and they went ahead and did the procedure anyway not confirming whether I was pregnant or not. They asked if I was pregnant for the first two surgeries I had, but to my knowledge, they didn’t test me for it for confirmation.

Plus, I worked for one Catholic hospital for five years, and another for one year, and I’ve never heard of a policy that dictated denying prescribed medical care in emergency situations because of a conflict with Catholic teachings. This hospital didn’t perform abortions to my knowledge, or sterilizations: the nearby secular hospital was used for that in both cases. But they had doctors on staff who were of various faiths, and had doctors’ offices attached to their hospital, though they were not employed by the hospital. They rented space from the hospital and were independent of the hospital. If that doctor wasn’t Catholic, they offered contraceptives, and of course, admitted their patients to other hospitals for sterilizations and other procedures. Most doctors are staffed at more than one hospital at a time.

However, none of these arrangements of doing a gall bladder surgery, or even giving birth, at the catholic hospital and doing tubal ligations at the secular hospital had nothing to do with emergencies through the ER. After working in these hospitals and working with the physicians for so long, I know that patients were admitted to secular facilities for things they wouldn’t do at the Catholic place, so I’m sure their emergency room admits were done the same. Keep in mind, the facilities were a few miles apart. But it becomes a problem in rural places, as Elizabeth indicated in previous posts, where people don’t have many options and hospitals are several miles apart. Where I live now, there is only one Catholic hospital, and it’s the furthest for me. Where I live now, I’m surrounded by secular hospitals.

 

[Rence]

I just noticed the title of your thread is" Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over sugery." Any particulary reason for the word surgery and not abortion? Just curious.

Because, according to the forum rules, you have to use the title of the article, and that was the title of the article. Also, keep in mind, this was a surgical procedure.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And there is nothing wrong with not being the one to do so. But that’s different than saying that it doesn’t need to be done. It’s all a part of the evangelization we’re called to as Catholics.

(I don’t think I ever said or implied that “it doesn’t need to be done.”)

When did I ever suggest “acting like a hothead”?

You didn’t. Many others have (on CAF & in other Catholic media settings.) I was expanding my reply in a general way because it is my opinion, based on my own experience, that many Catholics are very, very naive when it comes both to what is clinically possible in medicine and to what is legally feasible in a secular culture. It’s all theory and theology until you get into the OR, let alone the ER.

No, I do not think that people should reject a calling. In fact, I think it is actually sinful to reject a genuine calling unless one has severe reasons to avoid it. I think, though, one has to discern what is one’s genuine calling. I have heard from young people who are more interested in political activism than in medicine, and see medicine as their political platform. Extremely bad idea. Become a political activist, if that’s your calling.

 

[bookgirl32]

Yeah, so would I That’s why I go to a priest for spiritual advice and questions about my religion, and I go to a doctor for my physical health and questions about medicine.

The medical world sometimes does operate in one sphere and the theological world in the other. For example, it was forbidden to dissect cadavers, however, eventually after much conflict, the medical world appealed to the “powers that be” about not having enough information without dissecting cadavers. Another example was that it used to be forbidden to cremate bodies. However, the medical world knew that in some instances it was imperitive to burn bodies to help stop the spread of disease.

I’m not really referring to the medical world as it should be, but as it is now. It’s not fair act like it’s “purely medical” when it’s not. If one would look at religion as a set of values, dictated by something, then the medical world is very very very much influenced (acceptably influenced, in our culture) by secular values. So I could very much say that the religion of secularism is being forced upon me when I walk into a state funded hospital that does abortions every day.

That being said, I’m not speaking of forcing non-Catholics to adhere to our belief system. I’m speaking of the overall idea that there should somehow be a “seperation of Church and medical world” like there is a “seperation of Church and state”. While I believe in everyone’s free will, and their right to it, ideally civil law and medical ethics would be interpreted through the perspective of Natural and Divine law as God has revealed it. When I say this I’m not asking for some sort of Catholic state to be made. I realize that I can’t, nor should I be able to, force anyone to do anything. The Church is not going to be able to “make America a Catholic state” and that’s not what I’m implying. But it does recognize that there is an objective, revealed truth, and it should uphold that truth within civil law, and when civil law runs contrary to divine law it should remain true to the divine law in spite of, and regardless of the consequences of, civil law. And those that consider themselves Catholic also have a responsibility to do so, and follow the Church.

Simply put, we can’t force anything on anyone, but we also cannot stop being Catholic where it might get us in trouble with civil law. Which is what I believe, in this case, the hospital did. It wanted to avoid litigation. Abortion is objectively more morally wrong than the hospital protecting the livelihood and jobs of it’s employees by avoiding litigation.

And yet, we cannot force people to be Catholic or to follow Catholic teachings, rules and laws. And because we cannot force people to be Catholic, we cannot enforce Catholic teachings, rules and laws on those who choose not to be Catholic, or who chose not to obey the rules of the Catholic Church.

Then they don’t have to go to a Catholic hospital! And if in the extreme cases of emergency situations when the patient has not been able to make an informed choice and are brought to a Catholic hospital, that hospital and any employees within it are still responsible to uphold Divne Law over civil. Even though it may expose them to litigation. That is not equal to pushing their Catholic values onto another person. Quite the opposite, if they do nothing, they’re simply doing nothing. If they perform or assist in an abortion against their better judgement, they’re actually being forced to go along with that patient’s values.

 

[bookgirl32]

This is my argument, which you have stated beautifully, thank you You were INFORMED and had to sign a consent. You were informed “beforehand” about what they were going to do, and not do, according to the teachings of the Church for a routine medical procedure for which you went to that hospital. What I am talking about is accepting emergency patients with the intent to treat them but limiting the treatment to the confines of Catholic teaching and NOT disclosing that fact to the patient BEFORE there is no turning back for them. It is unacceptable to inform the patient that you’re not going to follow physician treatment orders, and watch them die rather than help them live, after they are in no position to go elsewhere or do anything about it. The patient has the right to know.

I completely agree with you here. But even in this situation, the blame lies with the hospital not doing this in the first place, and still does not, regardless of if they did it or not, relieve them of the right to uphold Divine Law. I’m not saying that civil law will accept that. I’m completely in agreement with you about how it should be handled from the get go, and that’s the problem with St. Joseph’s all around. But the fact that the hospital did not handle it that way and therefore exposed itself to litigation doesn’t render Divine Law meaningless of non-authoritative for that Catholic. And even if under civil law the doctor who refused treatment would be breaking the law, the patient, no matter how ignorant of Catholic theology, under Divine Law and regardless of civil law, still has no right to an abortion, and the doctor has deprived them of nothing. God’s laws are objectively true and binding whether one believes them or not. There is a reality outside of one’s opinion. I realize civil law doesn’t recognize this. It doesn’t make it not true.

I’ve never been informed of these things, and I’ve had surgery at a Catholic hospital three times (once through the emergency room). I’ve never been informed that they were going to follow canon law, rather than medicine and that if canon law and medicine conflicted they would follow canon law and deny me the prescribed medican treatments ordered. For my last surgery, I refused a pregnancy test, and they went ahead and did the procedure anyway not confirming whether I was pregnant or not. They asked if I was pregnant for the first two surgeries I had, but to my knowledge, they didn’t test me for it for confirmation.

Plus, I worked for one Catholic hospital for five years, and another for one year, and I’ve never heard of a policy that dictated denying prescribed medical care in emergency situations because of a conflict with Catholic teachings. This hospital didn’t perform abortions to my knowledge, or sterilizations: the nearby secular hospital was used for that in both cases. But they had doctors on staff who were of various faiths, and had doctors’ offices attached to their hospital, though they were not employed by the hospital. They rented space from the hospital and were independent of the hospital. If that doctor wasn’t Catholic, they offered contraceptives, and of course, admitted their patients to other hospitals for sterilizations and other procedures. Most doctors are staffed at more than one hospital at a time.

Then apparently my city has a ideal Catholic hospital. I was informed at my first prenatal appointment by my doctor that if I wanted a tubal after my c-section I had to have my c-section at another hospital, b/c no matter what, they will not be performed at this hospital. You’re right, every hospital that intends to act as a faithful Catholic hospital should be like this, and I do wish it was. But, again, what I said above still applies. Moral relativism doesn’t.

However, none of these arrangements of doing a gall bladder surgery, or even giving birth, at the catholic hospital and doing tubal ligations at the secular hospital had nothing to do with emergencies through the ER. After working in these hospitals and working with the physicians for so long, I know that patients were admitted to secular facilities for things they wouldn’t do at the Catholic place, so I’m sure their emergency room admits were done the same. Keep in mind, the facilities were a few miles apart. But it becomes a problem in rural places, as Elizabeth indicated in previous posts, where people don’t have many options and hospitals are several miles apart. Where I live now, there is only one Catholic hospital, and it’s the furthest for me. Where I live now, I’m surrounded by secular hospitals.

I do understand your distinction between elective and emergency procedures and I very much understand the legal implications for a Catholic hospital who has not taken the necessary steps to protect itself legally. I understand that under civil law it may be seen as a violation of the non-Catholic patient’s rights to withhold an abortion as a life-saving procedure. None of this changes the objectively true, regardless of opinion, fact that what abortion really is is a violation of the human rights of the fetus. And none of it changes what should be done even if a hospital with poor legal planning gets to this point. I realize that I’m not going to change civil law to reflect this and people will sue and people will lose jobs etc. etc. and someone might die.

My discussion with Seekerz was somewhat different because that was surrounding the confines of double effect and how the applications of the Divine Law may change should the Church decide that a procedure has become available to treat something that was previously untreatable that is morally licit.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Church is not going to be able to “make America a Catholic state” and that’s not what I’m implying. But it does recognize that ***there is an objective, revealed truth, and it should uphold that truth within civil law, and when civil law runs contrary to divine law it should remain true to the divine law in spite of, and regardless of the consequences of, civil law. ***And those that consider themselves Catholic also have a responsibility to do so, and follow the Church. .

[Bolding mine]

I know you’re responding to Rence, but I wanted to weigh in.

On previous threads on various subjects, I have explained that language is a huge deal. When one’s opposition cannot agree to your language (or interprets your language inaccurately), or when your language confuses them because they cannot relate to its premises and definitions, no amount of using ‘divine law’ arguments per se will persuade them that one’s own [one’s religion’s] ‘objective, revealed truth’ should be a “truth” that they must also accept. Maybe you don’t mean to use those words with secular institutions (“divine law,” “objective truth,” etc.). Maybe this is Inside Baseball for you, and you understand that the language itself does more to provoke than to invite (& persuade).

I will suggest again that secular institutions such as secular medical facilities, public schools, courts of law, commercial pharmacies, and governmental bodies will generally not buy an explicitly sectarian philosophical system. That absolutely does not mean that a Catholic – whether in medicine or any other field – cannot or should not apply & act in accord with his or her faith tradition. Certainly (for example), many Jews do so, relative to their own faith tradition. And these environments understand that. But if I wanted to make a case, in one of those non-Catholic settings, for the upholding of (Catholic) morality, I sure as heck wouldn’t start talking about revealed objective truth & divine law.

An excellent (in my opinion) example of this is Professor Robert George’s approach to the gay marriage debate. He uses language and suppositions that the secular world can accept without an explciit Catholic context. He returns the debate to common definitions, common experience, and then proceeds logically to make the case. It is a universal approach, not an identifiably “Catholic” approach (yes, I know that Catholic means universal ), even though Prof. George is very much committed to the religious Catholic arguments against gay marriage. (A recent published co-authored article of his is cited on a different CAF thread.) You will find legal arguments in there; you will both legal and philosophical terminology, but none that can be uniquely identified as Catholic, “divine,” etc. His arguments are, if anything, anthropological, which should please a secularist.

 

[bookgirl32]

(I don’t think I ever said or implied that “it doesn’t need to be done.”)

You didn’t. Many others have (on CAF & in other Catholic media settings.) I was expanding my reply in a general way because it is my opinion, based on my own experience, that many Catholics are very, very naive when it comes both to what is clinically possible in medicine and to what is legally feasible in a secular culture. It’s all theory and theology until you get into the OR, let alone the ER.

No, I do not think that people should reject a calling. In fact, I think it is actually sinful to reject a genuine calling unless one has severe reasons to avoid it. I think, though, one has to discern what is one’s genuine calling. I have heard from young people who are more interested in political activism than in medicine, and see medicine as their political platform. Extremely bad idea. Become a political activist, if that’s your calling.

But not almost everyone who reads your post is going to be “naive” about the whole process. All along you’ve been trying to explain this complex situation seemingly coming from the position that whoever is reading doesn’t get that part of it and needs to know. So in trying to explain “what is legally feasible” in a secular culture, even though you don’t support one’s actions being dictated by this, you can come across sounding like you think that they should.

I would argue that many, and especially on these forums, Catholics are far more informed than you think. Especially if they’re practicing, devout Catholics. Give people the benefit of the doubt and maybe assume they’re at your level of knowledge until they’ve given you reason to think otherwise, and it might not get so confusing.

 

[bookgirl32]

[Bolding mine]

I know you’re responding to Rence, but I wanted to weigh in.

On previous threads on various subjects, I have explained that language is a huge deal. When one’s opposition cannot agree to your language (or interprets your language inaccurately), or when your language confuses them because they cannot relate to its premises and definitions, no amount of using ‘divine law’ arguments per se will persuade them that one’s own [one’s religion’s] ‘objective, revealed truth’ should be a “truth” that they must also accept. Maybe you don’t mean to use those words with secular institutions (“divine law,” “objective truth,” etc.). Maybe this is Inside Baseball for you, and you understand that the language itself does more to provoke than to invite (& persuade).

I’m not trying to persuade anyone of anything. I’m communicating what I know, through the Church, to be true. That someone may or may not be persuaded or agree with me doesn’t matter. It’s true no matter what they or I believe. If I were talking to someone that did not identify themselves as Catholic, I would be using different language. You say you’re Catholic, therefore I’m assuming you understand the concepts of objective truth and moral relativism and where they fit into Catholic theology.

I will suggest again that secular institutions such as secular medical facilities, public schools, courts of law, commercial pharmacies, and governmental bodies will generally not buy an explicitly sectarian philosophical system.

This has nothing to do with my discussion. St. Joseph’s Hospital was not a secular institution. You are Catholic, I am Catholic, Rence identifies as Catholic as does Seekerz and Little Soldier. I’m assuming I don’t have to persuade you to buy anything, as you should have already “bought it”.

That absolutely does not mean that a Catholic – whether in medicine or any other field – cannot or should not apply & act in accord with his or her faith tradition. Certainly (for example), many Jews do so, relative to their own faith tradition. And these environments understand that. But if I wanted to make a case, in one of those non-Catholic settings, for the upholding of (Catholic) morality, I sure as heck wouldn’t start talking about revealed objective truth & divine law.

Well, that’s good, neither would I. We’re not in a non-Catholic setting, and neither were the Bishop and St. Joseph hospital (well, it didn’t used to be non-Catholic, anyway).

An excellent (in my opinion) example of this is Professor Robert George’s approach to the gay marriage debate. He uses language and suppositions that the secular world can accept without an explciit Catholic context. He returns the debate to common definitions, common experience, and then proceeds logically to make the case. It is a universal approach, not an identifiably “Catholic” approach (yes, I know that Catholic means universal ), even though Prof. George is very much committed to the religious Catholic arguments against gay marriage. (A recent published co-authored article of his is cited on a different CAF thread.) You will find legal arguments in there; you will both legal and philosophical terminology, but none that can be uniquely identified as Catholic, “divine,” etc. His arguments are, if anything, anthropological, which should please a secularist.

See above. If someone is identifying as non-Catholic in their post or I’m over on the apologetics board, I can use different language. I’m asking a practicing Catholic if they agree with the Church. Period. Nothing more.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But not almost everyone who reads your post is going to be “naive” about the whole process. All along you’ve been trying to explain this complex situation seemingly coming from the position that whoever is reading doesn’t get that part of it and needs to know.

I can only respond to language that is offered to me. When Catholics assert simplistically that the vast secular state can simply be taken on by a minority of believers, without regard to what is indeed feasible and what is not (because some of it is), then I can logically deduce that many of them live sheltered lives, by choice or accident.

I would argue that many, and especially on these forums, Catholics are far more informed than you think. Especially if they’re practicing, devout Catholics. Give people the benefit of the doubt and maybe assume they’re at your level of knowledge until they’ve given you reason to think otherwise

I beg to differ. I’ve seen enormous naivete about the secular world from Catholics on and off CAF. Not that they don’t get what’s happening: they do; I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that it’s obvious to me that a significant segment of activist-inclined Catholics give me evidence constantly that they think much more can be accomplished – especially in a short period of time – than it can. And again, when I talk about what can be accomplished, I refer especially to those who insist on using identifiably religious language and assumptions to address a secular world. They say it on CAF; they say it on EWTN (and quote on EWTN radio/TV words they have used with the secular culture). Others, however, are more astute, but again, often these are Catholics who have withdrawn from secular circles (in their profession) because of the futility of common assumptions. Hence (I talked about his on another thread), there was a guest on Women of Grace who stated that she no longer counsels marreid couples who are not Catholic because “they just don’t get it about being open to life, and it’s impossible to explain it to them.”

 

[bookgirl32]

I can only respond to language that is offered to me. When Catholics assert simplistically that the vast secular state can simply be taken on by a minority of believers, without regard to what is indeed feasible and what is not (because some of it is), then I can logically deduce that many of them live sheltered lives, by choice or accident.

Or you could say that some of them are just faithful Catholics, with a real and true faith that the world should be as God says it should and that if they do their part to try and make it that way, it might. That you don’t get to define what is and is not feasible. Or that, gasp, you may be misunderstanding them and just need to ask them to clarify. Your bordering on intellectual snobbery here. And when I say things like it was probably pretty unfeasible that a carpenter born in a barn with uneducated fishermen as followers managed to institute Christianity and changed the world, I mean it, literally. However naive I sound.

I beg to differ. I’ve seen enormous naivete about the secular world from Catholics on and off CAF. Not that they don’t get what’s happening: they do; I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that it’s obvious to me that a significant segment of activist-inclined Catholics give me evidence constantly that they think much more can be accomplished – especially in a short period of time – than it can. And again, when I talk about what can be accomplished, I refer especially to those who insist on using identifiably religious language and assumptions to address a secular world.

Elizabeth, they’re on a Catholic Answers Forum, sorry to disappoint you, but this is not a secular world. But please, feel free to go tell faithful people what God can or can’t accomplish if they fervently believe Him despite a secular culture set against Him.

They say it on CAF; they say it on EWTN (and quote on EWTN radio/TV words they have used with the secular culture). Others, however, are more astute, but again, often these are Catholics who have withdrawn from secular circles (in their profession) because of the futility of common assumptions. Hence (I talked about his on another thread), there was a guest on Women of Grace who stated that she no longer counsels marreid couples who are not Catholic because “they just don’t get it about being open to life, and it’s impossible to explain it to them.”

It sounds to me like you think that faithful and devout Catholics who refuse to be influenced by the secular world are stupid. That’s what it sounds like.