Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

[LittleSoldier]

Are you so sure that ‘discrete language’ refers to actually lying? Or is it just an avoidance of telling the truth?

That is what I would expect the Nazis (thankyou for correcting my grammar) would do.

Well, uh, gee, I don’t really know. I suppose if the Nazis asked me if there were Jews in the attic and I knew there were, I could dance a little jig and say “Well maybe, I suppose there’s always the possibility of that, uh, what do you guys think? Do you think I am the type of person to hide Jews in an attic? Have you even stopped to think about this? Now I have no idea why you believe there is a possibility of Jews being in the attic as I certainly never told you that. In fact, why did you believe the guy who told you that there are Jews in the attic? I have it on good authority that he just loves to fink on people. Now, as for Jews, we really need to discuss politics and religion. What do you guys think? Do you really believe all that stuff the fuhrer says about Jews? By the way, you know those ghettos they live in? That’s what they’re going to call areas that poor black people live in in the United States someday. Ha ha, isn’t that funny? Jews here and blacks there, I suppose black Jews would have no problem,…he he he…what do you guys think? Why don’t we go grab some of that great beer you make and forget all about the possibility of Jews being in the attic? Whadda ya say? Friends?”

BTW, it’s “thank you,” not “thankyou.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

???

Poster, you need to allow others to continue their threaded conversations when they are addressing each other. You weren’t being addressed. Bookgirl had asked me a question; she was directly answered, with her name in the quote box. If you don’t understand the conversation between her and me, please go back and reread the sequence.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It was an example that I used to show how the present question is wrong.I didn’t want it to be about lying to Nazis, but about the problem with the arguement.

You’re the one who brought up the Nazis. You’re the one who took the thread off-topic. That’s why Godwin’s Law should be taken seriously.

 

[Elizabeth502]

From my earlier post:

You didn’t answer this part. And that’s what I was asking.

It’s immaterial what my opinion is. The Bishop has spoken, in regard to the Catholicity of this hospital and how he defines that, which is distinctly different from the ethics of the medical profession. Neither U.S. law nor the medical profession will allow the Roman Catholic Church – locally or from Rome – to dictate hospital practices for the general public (including non-Catholics). It doesn’t matter whether 100% of the Catholic population agrees with him, or whether 0% agrees with him. Agreement has nothing to do with it. (At least with the practicalities of delivery of medical services, which is the subject I’m addressing.)

 

[LittleSoldier]

Poster, you need to allow others to continue their threaded conversations when they are addressing each other. You weren’t being addressed. Bookgirl had asked me a question; she was directly answered, with her name in the quote box. If you don’t understand the conversation between her and me, please go back and reread the sequence.

Any poster can respond to any post. If you wish to carry on a private conversation you are supposed to do so using PMs. Once you post, any forum member can respond, whether it be showing confusion, agreeing, or disagreeing. If you don’t understand this you can ask the moderator to explain it to you.

I fully intend to respond to any post I want to respond to, even if it has another poster’s name in the quote box. If you don’t like the way this forum is run, that is something you need to take up with CAF Administration. There are no “threaded conversations.” There are only threads.

 

[jimmy]

Well, uh, gee, I don’t really know. I suppose if the Nazis asked me if there were Jews in the attic and I knew there were, I could dance a little jig and say “Well maybe, I suppose there’s always the possibility of that, uh, what do you guys think? Do you think I am the type of person to hide Jews in an attic? Have you even stopped to think about this? Now I have no idea why you believe there is a possibility of Jews being in the attic as I certainly never told you that. In fact, why did you believe the guy who told you that there are Jews in the attic? I have it on good authority that he just loves to fink on people. Now, as for Jews, we really need to discuss politics and religion. What do you guys think? Do you really believe all that stuff the fuhrer says about Jews? By the way, you know those ghettos they live in? That’s what they’re going to call areas that poor black people live in in the United States someday. Ha ha, isn’t that funny? Jews here and blacks there, I suppose black Jews would have no problem,…he he he…what do you guys think? Why don’t we go grab some of that great beer you make and forget all about the possibility of Jews being in the attic? Whadda ya say? Friends?”

BTW, it’s “thank you,” not “thankyou.”

Thank you again. I could use some help with my papers in the future. Do you have an application that you could sell me, like “LS Spell Check” or something along those lines? It could give me a little condescending remark everytime I made a spelling error. Maybe throw in a few curse words here and there (“you little sh… it’s i before e except after c.”). It would make writing papers a little more enjoyable.

But regarding the post. I didn’t want to make it about lying but was only using the example to illustrate the problem with the argument.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Putatively Catholic hospitals can’t kill non-Catholic patients even with informed consent.

They most certainly can allow a mother and 11-week-old fetus to die together with informed consent. That’s exactly what Bishop Olmstead suggested should have been allowed to transpire. One wouldn’t have to be Catholic to authorize a physician not to intervene with death processes. You’re very wrong about that.

 

[bookgirl32]

NO, IT’S NOT!!! And even bringing this up is veering this thread off-topic. If you want to discuss this, why don’t you start a new thread? And it’s “Nazis,” not “Nazi’s.”

I have been through this debate before. Twice.

This is Church teaching, straight from the CCC:

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

2491 Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.

[Bolding added]

Thanks LS. I was just about to quote that. I shouldn’t have left such a short, non-informative answer.

 

[bookgirl32]

It’s immaterial what my opinion is. The Bishop has spoken, in regard to the Catholicity of this hospital and how he defines that, which is distinctly different from the ethics of the medical profession. Neither U.S. law nor the medical profession will allow the Roman Catholic Church – locally or from Rome – to dictate hospital practices for the general public (including non-Catholics). It doesn’t matter whether 100% of the Catholic population agrees with him, or whether 0% agrees with him. Agreement has nothing to do with it. (At least with the practicalities of delivery of medical services, which is the subject I’m addressing.)

I was just asking if you thought that when it came down to Catholic individuals’ choices (not non-Catholic), if they were in a situation like the one in Pheonix, if you believed that they still had an obligation to uphold divine law in spite of civil law. I realize they might be breaking civil law. Does civil law, being what it is, relieve a faithful Catholic, individiually, from upholding divine law as revealed by the Church, if it is contrary?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Thank you again. I could use some help with my papers in the future. Do you have an application that you could sell me, like “LS Spell Check” or something along those lines? It could give me a little condescending remark everytime I made a spelling error. Maybe throw in a few curse words here and there (“you little sh… it’s i before e except after c.”). It would make writing papers a little more enjoyable.

Don’t you have a spell check program on your computer? I know that not all systems have one. I didn’t have one for awhile and I made a ton of mistakes. Sorry about the “thankyou” - I kind of meant it as a joke because you had thanked me about “Nazi’s” with “thankyou.”

My sister was an English teacher. I couldn’t make the tiniest error without her pointing it out to me. I still try my best to not have anything like a dangling participle.

Hmmm…an application. Actually you can probably buy one but not from me, although I could use the money.

As for “i before e except after c, except when sounding like ‘a’ as in ‘neighbor’ and ‘weigh’” - there’s something weird about that. The word “weird” doesn’t follow the rule.

I didn’t use any curse words, did I? I’m not sure but I don’t remember using any curse words, although you’re certainly free to use them. I try to stay away from that.

Look. We got off to a bad start. Maybe it was that whole Nazi thing and maybe it was my reaction to this thread and maybe it’s because my little finger on my right hand feels like it’s asleep although I can move it and none of my other fingers feel like they’re asleep.

I apologize for being rude and uncharitable. I am having a problem with charity in this thread. If you read my previous posts there’s one that explains why. But I shouldn’t expect you to know that.

But regarding the post. I didn’t want to make it about lying but was only using the example to illustrate the problem with the argument.

OK. I understand. Why don’t we forget about the Nazis? And maybe start over?

 

[LittleSoldier]

The influence of Pythagoras has transcended the field of mathematics, and the Hippocratic Oath – with its central commitment to “First do no harm” – has its roots in the oath of the Pythagorean Brotherhood. Biography of Pythagoras

With that kind of knowledge you would have gotten an “A” in the course I took. And maybe you would have understood what we were supposed to be learning.

 

[bookgirl32]

Yes it is.

Maturity. Love it.

The argument is that you can never do evil that good may come from it. So a lie can never be told no matter what the effect is because it is considered an offense against the truth.

The problem is that it places the value of mere facts above that of life. As if the fact that I am hiding Jews has any bearing on eternal reality.

I’m so tempted to get into this with you. But LS is right, and the thread will be shut down if we get that off track. So start another thread and we can talk about it there.

In regards to “letting them die”: For all you seem to have the book read on lying, you don’t seem to be able to catch the difference between inaction and direct killing. As I said, using “the baby is going to die anyway” argument is so in antithesis to Catholic moral teaching (and from what you say, you’re Maronite, so we’re all under the same moral teaching, and the same authority, east/west being matters of tradition, and not Tradition) it’s almost funny.

 

[jimmy]

Don’t you have a spell check program on your computer? I know that not all systems have one. I didn’t have one for awhile and I made a ton of mistakes. Sorry about the “thankyou” - I kind of meant it as a joke because you had thanked me about “Nazi’s” with “thankyou.”

My sister was an English teacher. I couldn’t make the tiniest error without her pointing it out to me. I still try my best to not have anything like a dangling participle.

Hmmm…an application. Actually you can probably buy one but not from me, although I could use the money.

As for “i before e except after c, except when sounding like ‘a’ as in ‘neighbor’ and ‘weigh’” - there’s something weird about that. The word “weird” doesn’t follow the rule.

I didn’t use any curse words, did I? I’m not sure but I don’t remember using any curse words, although you’re certainly free to use them. I try to stay away from that.

Look. We got off to a bad start. Maybe it was that whole Nazi thing and maybe it was my reaction to this thread and maybe it’s because my little finger on my right hand feels like it’s asleep although I can move it and none of my other fingers feel like they’re asleep.

I apologize for being rude and uncharitable. I am having a problem with charity in this thread. If you read my previous posts there’s one that explains why. But I shouldn’t expect you to know that.

OK. I understand. Why don’t we forget about the Nazis? And maybe start over?

Sounds good to me. No more nazis and lying.

I don’t think I have spell check for my internet. I have it for Word, but I write my responses in my internet browser. You didn’t use any curse words, I just thought it was kind of a funny idea for a spell check.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I was just asking if you thought that when it came down to Catholic individuals’ choices (not non-Catholic), if they were in a situation like the one in Pheonix, if you believed that they still had an obligation to uphold divine law in spite of civil law. I realize they might be breaking civil law. Does civil law, being what it is, relieve a faithful Catholic, individiually, from upholding divine law as revealed by the Church, if it is contrary?

IMHO the answer is “no.” As Catholics we know the Church teaches Truth. Also, civil law is written, enacted, and enforced by human beings. Divine Law is written, enacted, and enforced by God.

Divine Law trumps man-made law. Every time.

Catholics answer to a higher authority. We are not obligated to adhere to an immoral man-made law. There’s a CCC reference for this but it would take me awhile to find it. I used it on another thread and I know it exists.

 

[bookgirl32]

IMHO the answer is “no.” As Catholics we know the Church teaches Truth. Also, civil law is written, enacted, and enforced by human beings. Divine Law is written, enacted, and enforced by God.

Divine Law trumps man-made law. Every time.

Catholics answer to a higher authority. We are not obligated to adhere to an immoral man-made law. There’s a CCC reference for this but it would take me awhile to find it. I used it on another thread and I know it exists.

Oh I totally agree with and believe it to be the truth.

 

[jimmy]

Maturity. Love it.

I was going to leave my post at that because I thought it was funny. But I decided to edit it.

You and LS have defeated me into silence. I can no longer respond about nazis.

Regarding the ‘let em die’, I grasp the difference between inaction and direct killing but sometimes I think inaction falls short of charity.

On this issue I am conflicted. There are two examples that come to mind from moral theology that inform in opposite directions somewhat. The problem is one of those examples contains a nefarious group that we have already decided to not discuss. That example is in your favor and is about the distinction between inaction and direct killing. The other example is in relation to ectopic pregnancies. The Church accepts a procedure that removes the filopian tube around the embryo, but not a procedure that directly attacks the child. Either way it ends in the death of the child but one method is accepted and the other isn’t (I forget the names of the two procedures). According to this method I could see how the hospital could be justified, as long as their objective wasn’t to directly end the pregnancy.

 

[bookgirl32]

I was going to leave my post at that because I thought it was funny. But I decided to edit it.

You and LS have defeated me into silence. I can no longer respond about nazis.

Regarding the ‘let em die’, I grasp the difference between inaction and direct killing but sometimes I think inaction falls short of charity.

On this issue I am conflicted. There are two examples that come to mind from moral theology that inform in opposite directions somewhat. The problem is one of those examples contains a nefarious group that we have already decided to not discuss. That example is in your favor and is about the distinction between inaction and direct killing. The other example is in relation to ectopic pregnancies. The Church accepts a procedure that removes the filopian tube around the embryo, but not a procedure that directly attacks the child. Either way it ends in the death of the child but one method is accepted and the other isn’t (I forget the names of the two procedures). According to this method I could see how the hospital could be justified, as long as their objective wasn’t to directly end the pregnancy.

Glad you have a sense of humor, we need it in this post.

I’ll answer you, I’ve just paid far more attention to this forum today than my husband, and I’m in trouble.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I was going to leave my post at that because I thought it was funny. But I decided to edit it.

You and LS have defeated me into silence. I can no longer respond about nazis.

Regarding the ‘let em die’, I grasp the difference between inaction and direct killing but sometimes I think inaction falls short of charity.

On this issue I am conflicted. There are two examples that come to mind from moral theology that inform in opposite directions somewhat. The problem is one of those examples contains a nefarious group that we have already decided to not discuss. That example is in your favor and is about the distinction between inaction and direct killing. The other example is in relation to ectopic pregnancies. The Church accepts a procedure that removes the filopian tube around the embryo, but not a procedure that directly attacks the child. Either way it ends in the death of the child but one method is accepted and the other isn’t (I forget the names of the two procedures). According to this method I could see how the hospital could be justified, as long as their objective wasn’t to directly end the pregnancy.

Jimmy, no one can say you are not tenacious.

You’re right - the end is the same. The child is dead. But there’s more to it than the death of a human being, as horrible and tragic as that is. I don’t think anyone is showing a lack of compassion for the child or for the mother.

But there is something important going on that really has little to do with the final outcome. Do the ends always justify the means? Earlier I presented an analogy and now I can’t find it (it might have been on another thread). So please bear with me and I’ll repeat it;

You are asleep and are awakened by strange noises. It sounds like someone might have broken into your house. You grab your gun from the bedside table and sneak down the stairs to see what’s going on. Sure enough, there is a burglar in your house. He has a knife. He sees you and comes at you with the knife. You shoot but miss because he moves. That’s when you see your young daughter who had gotten up to investigate the noises. You couldn’t see her before because she was behind the burglar. You have shot her and she is dead.

Now change it a bit. You are asleep and hear noises, yada yada yada…you see the burglar. He has a knife but he sees you have a gun and he drops the knife. He then moves to the side and you see your young daughter who had gotten up to investigate the noises. You shoot her. You have shot her and she is dead.

In both cases the result is exactly the same: your daughter is dead because you shot her. But in the first case you didn’t intent to shoot her, while in the second case you did.

Intent is very, very important. That is what is important in this case (IMHO).

To oversimplify the Arizona case, the impression I have is that the staff believed the child was dying. So they hurried the process along a little by killing her (I’m assuming it was a girl; I don’t really know). Killing an innocent human being is murder. The child was murdered. I’m not 100% clear on direct abortion vs. indirect abortion as I haven’t had time to read all the references that have been provided in this thread. But I believe it was a direct abortion and the Church teaches that direct abortions are illicit. Always. Their objective was to kill the baby. Just because killing her supposedly helped her mother to survive doesn’t justify killing her.

Does this help?

BTW, it’s “Nazis,” not “nazis.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have a feeling that you’re not quite right. No Catholic hospital is required to provide abortions or contraceptives or sterilizations. And I hope no Catholic hospital other than the one in Arizona does so. Hospitals can be sued for anything and are. When the ACLU sues to “force” Catholic hospitals to provide abortion for convenience, Catholic hospitals will close. It has nothing to do with not providing treatment to non-Catholics; it has to do with the Church’s teaching that abortion is wrong.

It helps when you don’t just make thiings up out of whole cloth.

(1) The ACLU lawsuit is about abortions in life-threatening situations, not “for convenience,” according to two articles I read – at least one of which was cited on CAF.

(2) I agree that it is doubtful that the ACLU could force sterilization and contraception policies on private (Catholic or other) hospitals, especially if not rising to any life-threatening situation. The Phoenix patient case did not pertain to those two issues. However, it is to be noted that the Bishop complained that there were concerns in previous years about contraceptive distribution at the hospital, etc. Further, the lay theologian’s report included admission of suggestion of an elective abortion in fall of '09.

(3) You don’t seem to have been following much of the discussion here on the realities of medical services. I don’t make up the laws; I’m just reflecting on what’s required for access by all citizens, and that in cases where one hospital is the only one in a geographic area, such hospitals run the risk of violating federal statutes if they withhold life-saving measures based on sectarian morality, including if such life-saving measures involve abortion of an 11-week-old fetus.

(4) I agree that Catholic hospitals would close rather than be comply with reproductive policies which violate RCC moral guidelines. To me, that’s not the issue. The issue is that there are still many (lay & clergy) who imagine that they can select Catholic morality over medical ethics for non-Catholic patients who object and who do not have alternative medical facilities within reach of the time needed. Clearly I’m talking about time-urgent situations here, such as unexpected early deliveries or unforeseen obstetrical complications. I would very much doubt that routine, non-emergency services would apply. (Contraception, elective sterilization, elective abortion without threat of immanent death to mother, etc.) And I agree: I would hope not.

(5) Medical facilities include the category of emergency services which treat the public in general, even though these facilities also offer routine care. Such facilities must meet civil requirements for such delivery of emergency services, if alternative services are not available.

(6) Again, the solution is to reserve a section of any Catholic or Catholic-affiliated hospital for treatment policies which are directy under the authority of the local Bishop, and only such treatments.

 

[TracyR]

I say Kudos to the Bishop! Someone needs to stand up for the rights of the unborn.

Honestly today with all this high tech stuff I don’t believe that the mother would have been in any danger should they have at least tried to get the baby to an age that it would have been viable outside of the womb.
I’ve seen stories of women with cancers that are pregnant being treated during pregnancies. I’ve seen stories of people and even fetuses having surgeries to help save lives during pregancies. So all of that is just garbage.

As for determining whether the child would live or not. That was NOT up to the hospital to determine. My fourth pregnancy was riddled with one thing after another. We were even given the “option” for abortion due to them thinking my daughter would not live.
Let me tell you. She may have been born with multiple birth defects. But if you saw her she is no different than any other 4 yr old. Her only ‘sign’ of having problems is the fact she has a missing right thumb. It doesn’t account for the multiple birth defects she was born with inside her body. But he is a happy , for the most part healthy, very intelligent four year old whom I could never imagine my life without. If I had listened to the doctors and had gone through with such a thing I would of missed out on such a wonderful gift from God.

I also had preeclampsia with my first daughter and even though my BP got mighty high we both survived. My oldest will be 13 and I can’t imagine my life without her.

Pregnancy is a risky thing period. Nothing , I mean nothing, makes abortion right.
I even read a story not to long ago about a family who had a child with a terrible birth defect. The child had part of its brain. They allowed the pregnancy to go on even though they knew their child would maybe live for only minutes after birth. They allowed her to have a chance and wanted to know her, it was a beautiful story ( newsobserver.com/2010/11/17/807998/saying-hello-and-goodbye.html) . The only one who has the right to take a life is God. Peroid.