Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1holycatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is part of an updated statement from Bishop Olmstead (or Olmsted or Olmsed):

December 22, 2010
At a December 21 news conference, Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix, Arizona, explained his decision to lift the “Catholic” designation from St. Joseph’s Hospital after hospital officials declined to offer adequate guarantees that they would abide by Catholic moral directives.

Bishop Olmsted said that in an admittedly difficult case, the hospital had violated the Ethical and Religious Directives approved by the US bishops in performing an abortion for a woman whose life was reportedly endangered by her pregnancy. Without disputing the hospital’s finding that the woman (and thus the unborn child as well) would have died if the pregnancy had continued, the bishop explained that it is never justifiable to take one human life in order to save another. The operation performed in the controversial case, he noted, did not address the medical problems of the mother; it only caused the death of the unborn child.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8676

Please note that in the above quote the bishop’s name is spelled in two different ways. I question a news source that can’t even get the name of the bishop correct and isn’t consistent with the spelling it uses.

Here are two more links that I haven’t had time to check out yet:

arizonacatholic.org/2010/12/21/video-news-conference-regarding-st-josephs-hospital/

ncronline.org/news/catholic-health-association-backs-phoenix-hospital
 
Hmmmm??? Did the Bishop graduate from an accredited medical school??? :confused:
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Would you mind posting a link about this hypoxic placenta? I didn’t see that mentioned in the original article.
Click to expand...
no-direct-abortion-phoenix-hospital-theologian-says
No direct abortion at Phoenix hospital, theologian says
‘Mother and fetus were both in the process of dying’
Dec. 23, 2010
By Jerry Filteau

….
“The mother and fetus were both in the process of dying … It was not a matter of choosing one life or the other. The child’s life, because of natural causes, was in the process of ending,” wrote theologian M. Therese Lysaught in a 24-page analysis of the medical procedure performed by St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in November 2009.
…
“On Nov. 5, 2009, the mother and fetus were both in the process of dying,” she said. “Due to the age of the fetus, there was no possibility that it could survive outside the womb. Nor, due to the mother’s heart failure and cardiogenic shock, was there any possibility that the fetus could survive inside the womb. In short, in spite of the best efforts of the mother and of her medical staff, the fetus had become terminal, not because of a pathology of its own but because of a pathology in its maternal environment. There was no longer any chance that the life of this child could be saved. This is crucial to note insofar as it establishes that at the point of decision, it was not a case of saving the mother or the child. It was not a matter of choosing one life or the other. The child’s life, because of natural causes, was in the process of ending.”
….
“The placenta was producing the physiological changes that imperiled the mother’s and child’s lives. … Although in one respect the placenta was functioning ‘normally,’ it was also functioning pathologically in two ways,” she said. “First, once the placenta initiated its normal function at week ten, a crisis was created. Second, once the patient entered cardiogenic shock, the **placenta also became hypoxic **[unable to get enough oxygen]. In these two ways, then, the placenta not only initiated a threat to the mother’s life; it also became the immediate/presenting cause of the inevitably fatal threat to the fetus.”
In acting to remove the placenta, the hospital knew that this intervention would inevitably also cause the death of the child – just as the child’s death is inevitable when a mother’s fallopian tube is removed in an ectopic pregnancy or when a pregnant woman’s cancerous uterus is removed – both classic examples of licit medical procedures in moral theology and church teaching.
……
 
Dark Night, (post 64): Same info also posted on page 4 of this thread. 🙂
Thanks for posting the link, though!
 
This has been confusing to me, but I’ve learned something. It’s not the action of the removal of the placenta, leading to the child’s death that makes this a direct or indirect abortion. It is the intent that is important. The intent in this case is what makes it a direct abortion.

If the removal of the placenta was conducted in order to save the mother’s life and the child died as a side-effect of that procedure, it would not have been an abortion, at least not a direct abortion.

But in this case, it’s my understanding that the intent was to deliberately kill an (innocent) unborn child (who is as valuable and as precious as the mother, and created by a loving God in His own image and likeness).

It is the intent that makes this a direct abortion and it is never acceptable to the Church to perform direct abortions. It’s never moral to commit a sin in order to save somebody’s life.

From what I have read I believe the bishop was entirely correct.
 
DarkNight said:
no-direct-abortion-phoenix-hospital-theologian-says
No direct abortion at Phoenix hospital, theologian says
‘Mother and fetus were both in the process of dying’
Dec. 23, 2010
By Jerry Filteau

….
“The mother and fetus were both in the process of dying … It was not a matter of choosing one life or the other. The child’s life, because of natural causes, was in the process of ending,” wrote theologian M. Therese Lysaught in a 24-page analysis of the medical procedure performed by St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in November 2009.
…
“On Nov. 5, 2009, the mother and fetus were both in the process of dying,” she said. “Due to the age of the fetus, there was no possibility that it could survive outside the womb. Nor, due to the mother’s heart failure and cardiogenic shock, was there any possibility that the fetus could survive inside the womb. In short, in spite of the best efforts of the mother and of her medical staff, the fetus had become terminal, not because of a pathology of its own but because of a pathology in its maternal environment. There was no longer any chance that the life of this child could be saved. This is crucial to note insofar as it establishes that at the point of decision, it was not a case of saving the mother or the child. It was not a matter of choosing one life or the other. The child’s life, because of natural causes, was in the process of ending.”
….
“The placenta was producing the physiological changes that imperiled the mother’s and child’s lives. … Although in one respect the placenta was functioning ‘normally,’ it was also functioning pathologically in two ways,” she said. “First, once the placenta initiated its normal function at week ten, a crisis was created. Second, once the patient entered cardiogenic shock, the **placenta also became hypoxic **[unable to get enough oxygen]. In these two ways, then, the placenta not only initiated a threat to the mother’s life; it also became the immediate/presenting cause of the inevitably fatal threat to the fetus.”
In acting to remove the placenta, the hospital knew that this intervention would inevitably also cause the death of the child – just as the child’s death is inevitable when a mother’s fallopian tube is removed in an ectopic pregnancy or when a pregnant woman’s cancerous uterus is removed – both classic examples of licit medical procedures in moral theology and church teaching.
……
Click to expand...
If the child is dying that does not give permission for hospital staff to kill him/her. There was a case (I believe it was in Washington state and I don’t have a link as it was presented on a program I watched in a hotel room; though I took notes they aren’t very good) in which a physician believed a baby was brain dead. He didn’t like the thought of the baby suffering (not that there was any proof that the baby was suffering; after all, if he was brain-dead how could he be suffering?) Anyway, the physician smothered the baby with a pillow.

It’s true that the baby might have died. But the physician did not inform the parents of what he planned to do and he was not an expert in neonatal care. The determination of “brain death” in neonatal infants is not the same as in older people. The physician should have waited. He didn’t. He murdered the baby and then could not understand why the parents were upset with his action.

It’s not our right to determine when a child, born or unborn, should die. That is God’s decision. The Church has made it clear that euthanasia is morally wrong. It is never acceptable to deliberately kill an innocent human being. The ends don’t justify the means. An immoral action, even one that allows a person to live, is not acceptable.

If, in an ectopic pregnancy, the removal of the fallopian tube is necessary to save the life of the mother, the procedure can be moral and the death of the unborn child in that fallopian tube is a tragic, unintended effect of the removal of the tube. As I’ve stated before in this thread, if in the future a way is found to keep the child alive that must be done.

But that’s not what happened in the present case. In this case the unborn child was deliberately killed. It was a direct abortion and was morally wrong. It’s the intent that made this procedure morally wrong.

This procedure was conducted in a Catholic hospital. It should have lost any affiliation with the Church.

The bishop was correct.
 
It is also important to note that this was just the last thing to happen. The bishop has been having an on going conversation with this group for 7 years on other issues.

There finally comes a time when talk must end and action must be taken. The bishop gave them 7 years and this final act by the hospital just shows what they think of the bishop and the Teaching of the Catholic Church.

It really does not matter if we agree or not, it is done, they are no longer a Catholic institution.

They know what they must do to fix this. This bickering in the press is not it. Humility and obedience to the Church is what is called for.
 
ByzCath said:
It is also important to note that this was just the last thing to happen. The bishop has been having an on going conversation with this group for 7 years on other issues.

There finally comes a time when talk must end and action must be taken. The bishop gave them 7 years and this final act by the hospital just shows what they think of the bishop and the Teaching of the Catholic Church.

It really does not matter if we agree or not, it is done, they are no longer a Catholic institution.

They know what they must do to fix this. This bickering in the press is not it. Humility and obedience to the Church is what is called for.
Click to expand...
Thank you. ** I suggest that anyone who is interested in this story to check Jimmy Akin’s blog - he has written six articles on the incident already.** From that site I found the following (which I posted before but which may have been incomplete):

Prompted by Bishop Olmsted’s stern warning, American Life League conducted its own investigation into CHW’s activities and discovered that its scandals are not limited to one abortion in one member hospital. In just two days, ALL found that

• CHW Arizona’s health care plan covers oral contraception and diaphragms
• CHW has granted money to at least six organizations that promote abortion, birth control and/or homosexual lifestyles
• At least one CHW member hospital promotes Planned Parenthood on its website, and another lists the provision contraception as a service
• 12 CHW members (as of 2001) performed tubal ligations
• 20 members currently refer for vasectomies by staff physicians on their websites
• CHW funded and helped create the “Healthy San Francisco” health plan, which covers elective abortion
• CHW CEO Lloyd Dean made donations to the Obama campaign and gave strong endorsements for the USCCB-condemned Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

ncregister.com/blog/exposed-catholic-abortion-hospitals-network/

From one of Jimmy’s articles I read that this hospital is part of a chain of hospitals. What is going on with them? :eek:
 
AnimalGal said:
Hmmmm??? Did the Bishop graduate from an accredited medical school??? :confused:
Click to expand...
The Bishop isn’t practicing medicine here. He’s exercising his authority as Bishop per canon law. Canon law, by the way, is his specialty (he has a doctorate in it).

The theologian who offered her opinion isn’t a medical doctor either. In fact, her PhD isn’t even from a Catholic institution. It’s from Duke and is in Theological Ethics. She has an MA from Notre Dame but it’s in straight theology. So she is not only lacking a medical degree, she is lacking a degree in Moral Theology too.

So, who do you give assent to?:

A: The Bishop, who besides being the only one with a real “vote” in the matter, is formally trained in canon law, exercising canon law and is a successor to the Apostles to boot.

B: A layperson, with no Church authority, who did not graduate with either medical or moral theology credentials but who did edit a book on moral theology. Sadly, the book does not seem to bear a nihil obstat or imprimatur.

Is this really a hard choice? :confused:
 
I trust the bishop’s judgment. Though, I think we all would like to know what could have been done other than what was. Anyone here medically qualified to give some insight?
 
When it comes to life or death matters, I would personally trust in the doctors presiding over me, not a bishop trying to be a doctor.

I am grateful that the St. Joseph’s Hospital in my area is not subjected to such behavior.
 
AnimalGal said:
When it comes to life or death matters, I would personally trust in the doctors presiding over me, not a bishop trying to be a doctor.

I am grateful that the St. Joseph’s Hospital in my area is not subjected to such behavior.
Click to expand...
Such behavior? You don’t seem to understand (although you have been told more than once) that THE BISHOP IS NOT PRACTICING MEDICINE. Why do you keep harping on that? He never claimed to be a physician. What don’t you understand? He is an expert on theology and canon law. You aren’t and neither are the doctors at the hospital. They put their souls in grave danger.

Should the bishop cave in to pressure from people like you who evidently can’t comprehend that a child was deliberately killed? I guess that’s what you think.

What part of “direct abortion” do you not understand? THE CHURCH NEVER ALLOWS A DIRECT ABORTION. Sorry for the upper-case letters, but I don’t see how else to get through to you.

If the St. Joseph’s hospital in your area goes against Church teaching and behaves in the same fashion as the hospital that has lost its Catholic affiliation, which includes very anti-life policies, you should be concerned. You should hope that the Catholic affiliation is taken away from your St. Joseph’s hospital, too.

And BTW, if your St. Joseph’s hospital is affiliated with the Catholic Church, then it *is *subject to such behavior, if you are referring to the behavior of the bishop, who is part of the long line of Apostles. The bishop knew what he was doing and he was absolutely correct in doing it.

You claim to be Catholic. That means you have to follow the teachings of the Church. The Church’s stance on abortion is clear: a direct abortion (like the one that was performed at the hospital) is NOT allowed. You cannot commit an evil action in order to have a positive outcome. It doesn’t work that way. Killing the child directly was evil. For some reason that I can’t figure out, you seem to not see any problem with that killing.

Fortunately the bishop did.
 
Corki said:
The Bishop isn’t practicing medicine here. He’s exercising his authority as Bishop per canon law. Canon law, by the way, is his specialty (he has a doctorate in it).

The theologian who offered her opinion isn’t a medical doctor either. In fact, her PhD isn’t even from a Catholic institution. It’s from Duke and is in Theological Ethics. She has an MA from Notre Dame but it’s in straight theology. So she is not only lacking a medical degree, she is lacking a degree in Moral Theology too.

So, who do you give assent to?:

A: The Bishop, who besides being the only one with a real “vote” in the matter, is formally trained in canon law, exercising canon law and is a successor to the Apostles to boot.

B: A layperson, with no Church authority, who did not graduate with either medical or moral theology credentials but who did edit a book on moral theology. Sadly, the book does not seem to bear a nihil obstat or imprimatur.

Is this really a hard choice? :confused:
Click to expand...
For the life of me, I can’t understand why she won’t let go of that “the bishop trying to be a doctor” theme. Maybe that’s the only way she can justify the killing of an innocent child. Such close-minded thinking is very dangerous. It saddens me to hear of such thinking on the eve of the celebration of the birth of Jesus. 😦
 
As a late comer to this thread, first let me thank LittleSoldier, Br. David (ByzCath) and others for your well-informed and faithfully Catholic posts.

There’s one thing that weighs heavily on my mind, and it’s the future of Catholic institutions, including hospitals and universities. I’ve heard an interview with an illustrious Catholic personality (I think he was the president of the Cardinal Newman Society) who said that the Catholic Church was forced to remove the “Catholic” designation from some 4 or 5 universities during the last decade. And here, this hospital really forced the hand of Bishop Olmstead, because they not only performed this abortion, they also provided contraception, IUDs, and surgeries to render people sterile. But my question is this: is there a way to fight back, keep our Catholic universities and hospitals Catholic, and fire those employees that persistently violate the Catholic mission of said institutions?

I’ve heard it explained that all Catholic universities in the USA were transferred from under the Bishops’ control to secular control around 1967. This was done simply to preserve the tax-exempt status of these universities. Now, they are being led by boards of trustees that include Catholic priests and nuns, but many of these priests and nuns are rebellious, disobedient to the Bishops, and that’s how we ended up with Notre Dame giving honorary doctorate to the leader of the Culture of Death (Barack Obama), Xavier U. of New Orleans doing the same with Donna Brazile and again with Barack Obama, and so on. In my opinion, these “Catholic” universities failed their Catholic mission in a spectacular way. Time to conclude that the experiment of 1967 was also a failure, because it allowed Catholic universities to go off the track of faithful Catholicism in return for a tax-exempt status. Time to transfer our “Catholic” universities back under the direct control of our Bishops, even if they loose their tax-exempt status. And I wonder whether something similar is going on with our Catholic hospitals, i.e. why aren’t they under the direct control of our Bishops (or religious orders, where applicable)? There must be a clear chain of command, damn the tax-exempt status. The local Bishop or superior of the religious order that operates the hospital should be given the authority to ENFORCE Catholic standards of bioethics in the Catholic hospitals, and the authority to FIRE those who persist in a state of rebellion. And if a Bishop or religious superior falls into rebellion, let the Pope remove him/her. That’s what I call a clear chain of command for a Catholic institution.

Let’s find a way to put our Catholic institutions back under the real authority of the Catholic Church. I think it would be worth even if we loose the tax-exempt status. Let the Bishops have the authority to keep our Catholic institutions Catholic.

Edit: I might be wrong about “keeping the tax-exempt status”, it might have been instead some trick to keep the federal dollars flowing, on the basis that the federal government threatened to cut off subsidies to Church-owned institutions. But at any rate, it was about the money, our Catholic universities have been taken out from the direct authority of the Church in the 1960s due to financial reasons, and look how some of them kept the money but lost their Catholic souls. I think it’s just not worth it, to sacrifice faithful catholicity for the sake of money.
 
It is now officially CHRISTMAS on the west coast of the U.S.

In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened.

But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased."

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
 
AnimalGal said:
When it comes to life or death matters, I would personally trust in the doctors presiding over me, not a bishop trying to be a doctor.

I am grateful that the St. Joseph’s Hospital in my area is not subjected to such behavior.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to St. Joseph Hospital in Orange, CA, I would have no problem with it losing its affiliation with the Catholic Church, although the Sisters would probably be quite upset. I’ve had three surgeries there, but if the hospital goes against Church teaching I would never pass through its doors again.

And I’ve never seen a bishop there wearing scrubs.
 
LittleSoldier said:
It is now officially CHRISTMAS on the west coast of the U.S.

In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened.

But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased."

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
Click to expand...
Thank you, and Merry Christmas to you, as well as to all readers on this forum!
 
Corki said:
If the diocese funds them, they lose it. Not all Catholic hospitals get direct funding anymore. The diocese will also, presumably, not lend its support to any hospital fundraising. They lose referals from Catholic Social Services and would no longer be listed under diocisan resources or supported by chancery departments. For example, the diocese may not assign chaplains.

Ideally, the superiors of any religious affiliated with the hospital would remove members of their congregations but in this particular case, I think the religious congregation was part of the problem.

Mostly, its bad PR and some minor expense to get a lot of things reprinted.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what it is. The net effect now will be that more pregnant women will be checking themselves in for “routine” abortions. But had the bishop not do what he had to do, fewer pregnant women would be checking themselves for anything into this clinic. It sounds like a promotion, but promotion for what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top