Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

[Rence]

People have the responsibility to know and accept that they will be treated in ways that follow Catholic Church teaching in a Catholic hospital. Time precious (to them) may be wasted while they are in a Catholic ER and expecting to be treated in a way which does not follow Church teaching.

I think we all agree with the above.

The goal, though, is to treat all patients in all hospitals, Catholic or not, as if the patients were Catholic and/or if the hospital were Catholic.

I’m sure that would be the goal of those who are Jewish, Muslim, Baptist, and even athiests. People all wanted to be treated with their own values held at the highest level, just like Catholics do. All people hold their own values as important and “truth”, and everyone thinks the other guy has it wrong. So being that this is a secular world, that won’t be the goal of a secular hospital, despite some Catholics believing that even secular hospitals should follow Catholic rules and laws.

 

[kimmielittle]

You, as a patient, have the right to consent or refuse treatment.

Didn’t I read that the patient and family refused to abort originally?

That should have been the end of it.

The Ethics Committee has no business trying to sway me.

 

[Rence]

First of all, what do you mean by “this”? The whole forum in general or this particular thread? So I have to refrain from using the term Divine Law in case there might be a non-Catholic lurker I don’t know about? Guess what, if they were interested (after getting over their shock that someone on a Catholic website was using the word “divine” while addressing another Catholic) is head right on over to apologetics and ask.

Elizabeth is not saying you have to refrain from using the term Divine Law in case there is a non-Catholic lurker an the forum. She’s saying that in regards to discussions with people who are not Catholic about topics they hold opinions on with secular values, or who aren’t willing to follow Catholic rules and laws, won’t help you win arguments because the term is not plausible to them, even if they do recognize the term. You can use the term all you like, but the term is important to you and other practicing Catholics, but you will have a hard time convincing your target audience if you can’t speak to them in ways they understand. And obviously your target is not a practicing Catholic… if a moslem was trying to convince me that I should adhere to a particular teaching by defining the teaching as “Moral Law” or “The Law of God”, I certainly wouldn’t give it any weight at all. He or she would have to come up with something that I can relate to, and being that I don’t accept one word of that religion, it wouldn’t work to just constantly cite that I should be following the laws of Islam. It would reach deaf ears…

I myself havent’ been talking about non-Catholics in this thread.

But you are talking about non-Catholics when you say things like “hospitals should be run according to Catholic teaching”, or “all patients should be treated as Catholics”.

My problem, however, is that a group of people claiming to be Catholic (including a nun) are publicly defying the bishop in their diocese.

I would agree with you in the case of this nun and this hospital, as it’s now known that the Bishop has had quite a battle with them in an effort to make them conform to the rules of the Church. However, even though a particular group is claiming to be Catholic, such as a any Catholic hospital, they are still subject to civil law, and they are subject to the rights of others. That doesn’t mean that they abandon their values when they walk through the door by any means, or that they should give in to secular pressure to do whatever the patient wants but it does require them to give the patient what he or she needs medically, or they shouldn’t be in the medical field. It also means, they can’t take advantage of a non-Catholic patient in crisis and not provide the prescribed care in order to help them. A Catholic hospital, just like any other hospital, is accountible for each patient they admit through their doors and is responsible for stabilizing the patient.

I haven’t heard from you once about how admirable it was of the Bishop to stand up for his Church, about how wrong it was of the hospital to openly defy him. You haven’t seemed to be (to me, in my opinion) in agreement with anyone who is looking upon the bishop and his actions positively. Yet you are extremely concerned that the non-Catholics shouldn’t think we’re too Catholic or they’ll – I don’t know, what are you afraid they’ll do? Not go to a Catholic hospital? It sounds (again, sounds to me, just my opinion, correct me if I’m wrong) like you don’t want them to.

I can’t speak for Elizabeth on how she feels about the Bishop, but I think it was admirable to for him to stand up for his Church, and his actions were positive. However, I don’t believe it was wrong for the hospital to give the required treatment to this woman if her life was in danger and she was too sick to transport out, which they said was the case.

And I’m not concerned that the non-Catholic patients would think the staff at a hospital as being “too Catholic”, however, it would pain me to think that they wouldn’t go to a Catholic hopsital because they think the medical care there would be inadequate or substandard, or that it would be a dangerous place to go, especially when they are in crisis.

I wouldn’t go to a Catholic hospital in a crisis, especially after gleening a bit of knowledge on online forums about how a handful people can get ten different interpretations of a same teaching – because if the staff were pracicing Catholics, they would be more concerned about following canon, and trying to interpret it, rather than taking care of my medical needs. It would be up to me to either refuse or consent treatment, but I want them concentrating on my medical needs, not on whether they are in compliance with what they think their religion is about.

Now, I’ve never encountered that in the emergency room: people floundering around trying to interpret canon…they’ve always been taking care of ME and other patients. But these threads have proven to be quite an eyeopener for me. People “on the same side” are arguing about “serious” reasons for using NFP, there are conflicts amoung the “traditional Catholics” regarding end of life issues, and then of course, applying medical practices to canon law. It’s been quite an eye opener.

 

[kimmielittle]

I get the impression, by some here, that think this Ethics Committee was called to verify the medical procedure or Doctors choice.

Why?

Secular hospitals use this method treating PH - it isn’t against state or federal; law. So they weren’t protecting the Doctor or Hospital against any liability - this way.

If it was a case of “Double effect”…no need to justify.

So why call the Ethics Committee?

I firmly believe, it was because the Mom and Family resisted the Doctor’s treatment by abortion and The Ethics Committee was used to sway them Mom and family ] from their position, to the Doctors.

 

[Rence]

Didn’t I read that the patient and family refused to abort originally?

That should have been the end of it.

The Ethics Committee has no business trying to sway me.

I didn’t read about the patient not wanting the procedure.

The Ethics Committee is not in the business of trying to sway the patient. The Ethics Committee’s responsibility is in making sure the procedures done, medical or otherwise, are ethical and pertinent to the case at hand.

 

[Rence]

I get the impression, by some here, that think this Ethics Committee was called to verify the medical procedure or Doctors choice.

It was called to make sure the procedure was appropriate for the patient, and to make sure that whatever choice they made did not incur a lawsuit.

Secular hospitals use this method treating PH - it isn’t against state or federal; law. So they weren’t protecting the Doctor or Hospital against any liability - this way.

I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking here, but I think you’re asking if the ethics committee had access to the patient’s records in order to come to a decision, and yes they did. They have to have access to the record and know what’s going on in order to make a determination. This is not against state or federal law. This is their job.

If it was a case of “Double effect”…no need to justify.

The Ethics committee in this hospital may have been called on to determine if it was religiously acceptable, but I doubt it. They weigh their options to determine which one is best for the patient ethically, and if there will be legal ramifications, and what they will be.

I firmly believe, it was because the Mom and Family resisted the Doctor’s treatment by abortion and The Ethics Committee was used to sway them Mom and family ] from their position, to the Doctors.

You can believe that, it’s okay. But I don’t. The Ethics Committee has nothing to do with swaying the patient. A patient has the right to refuse treatment, and just needs to refuse. The legal ramification is to document that the patient refused treatment and have a witness sign it. End of story. It doesn’t matter to the Ethics Committee if a patient refuses treatment. What matters to the Ethics Committee is if the hospital is accountable for wrongdoing…such as if the doctor prescribed treatment that the patient consented to, and then someone tried to circumvent the doctor’s orders - there is a huge liability in that course of action. There is also a huge liability if a hospital ignores the patient’s right to refuse, and goes ahead and does the procedure anyway. This committee was most likely (as indicated by the articles) called on to determine if the course of treatment was required by the patient or if not doing it was detrimental to the patient.

 

[kimmielittle]

I didn’t read about the patient not wanting the procedure.

Why would there be more than “Family Meetings”? The Mom says O’kay abort this baby…end of story.

The Ethics Committee is not in the business of trying to sway the patient. The Ethics Committee’s responsibility is in making sure the procedures done, medical or otherwise, are ethical and pertinent to the case at hand.

Was this abortion civil law ] legal?

No need for an Ethics Committee…

Did the Hospital claim “Double Effect” ?

No need for an Ethics Committee

The Medical records would protect any liability.

So what is the ONLY other reason to call an Ethics Committee?

Hospital statement says that the discussion was made with meetings of the Mom - Family - Ethics Committee - and Doctor.

It wasn’t the Procedure - Or liability of Doctor or Hospital…who’s left?

 

[Rence]

Why would there be more than “Family Meetings”? The Mom says O’kay abort this baby…end of story.

Because it was a Catholic hospital and someone called it to question. Therefore, the Ethics Committee had to give approval.

Was this abortion civil law ] legal?

No need for an Ethics Committee…

Yes, the surgery was legal. But only one person has to question it, and then it goes to the Ethics Committee for approval. Calling the ethics committee doesn’t mean the procedure is illegal. The assumption is that the procedure is legal, or it wouldn’t be done in a hospital. The reason for calling on the ethics committee is to determine the appropriateness of an action, for a particular case, and if there are legal ramifications in response to taking action, or not taking action, for a particular case.

Did the Hospital claim “Double Effect” ?
No need for an Ethics Committee
The Medical records would protect any liability.
So what is the ONLY other reason to call an Ethics Committee?
Hospital statement says that the discussion was made with meetings of the Mom - Family - Ethics Committee - and Doctor.
It wasn’t the Procedure - Or liability of Doctor or Hospital…who’s left?

It’s not the ethics committee’s job, from a legal standpoint, to determine if the procedure met the requirements of the principle of double effect. It is to make sure the hospital’s actions were legal and that the hospital would not be held liable in their actions. In other words, it was used to determine if the hospital’s actions were appropriate for this patient, and if denying medical care would warrant a malpractice case against the hospital. Medical records are used to examine the appropriateness of the procedures being done for a particular patient. I remember reading that the ethics committee determined that the procedure was needed to save the woman’s life, and that the woman was too sick to transfer. It was the procedure that needed approval in the context that it was being done in a Catholic hospital, and it was to protect the hospital and the doctor and the staff. The Ethics Committee can be called on whenever there is a question about a patient’s care, by any party involved, and it’s the job of the ethics committee to examine the possible legal ramifications involved for doing or not doing treatments for that patient.

 

[kimmielittle]

Because it was a Catholic hospital and someone called it to question. Therefore, the Ethics Committee had to give approval.

Please provide your evidence of this statement.

The ONLY person who had a say in refusing an abortion as treatment, was the Mom - as long as civil law legal - it remains the Mom’s choice. No one else can question it.

Question: Had the Mom accepted the abortion right off - would the Ethics Committee been used by this Doctor?

Yes, the surgery was legal.

Yes, the abortion was legal …Had the Mom agreed…end of story.

Have you not seen release papers signed for refusal to accept say chemo treatments.? I KNOW this would be done if the Mom DIDN"T accept ANY part of a treatment. This protects Hospital and Doctor.

In other words, it was used to determine if the hospital’s actions were appropriate for this patient, and if denying medical care would warrant a malpractice case against the hospital.

How can denying care come into the picture? - The ONLY way is …if had the Mom decided not to abort,** the hospital or doctor, thrown her to the street.**.

The Doctors mind was set - to abort
The legalities civil law ] AND secular medicine has used abortion as an “end to a means”, in treating PH before.

This Ethics committee was not called for any reason but to help change the Mom’s mind. IMO

 

[Rence]

Please provide your evidence of this statement.

You want me to prove that someone called the ethics committee for approval? Um, your proof is the fact that the ethics committee was called, and made a decision…

The ONLY person who had a say in refusing an abortion as treatment, was the Mom - as long as civil law legal - it remains the Mom’s choice. No one else can question it.

Really? There are many pages on this thread comprised of replies that said the staff should have refused the treatment. Of course others can question it. A nurse in the ER could question it and the ethics committee can be called on. A tech in the OR can question it and the ethics committe can be called on…

Question: Had the Mom accepted the abortion right off - would the Ethics Committee been used by this Doctor?

Yes, the Ethics Committee can be used by anyone who questions the ethics of a procedure, by anyone who questions it.

Yes, the abortion was legal …Had the Mom agreed…end of story.

The woman consented to the procedure…end of story. That’s the point, that’s why the ethics committee was called on.

Have you not seen release papers signed for refusal to accept say chemo tresatments.?

Yes, and for refusals for feeding tubes, ventilators, catheters, IV’s, immunizations. Yep, the patient can refuse any treatment as long as the patient is competent.

How can denying care come into the picture? - The ONLY way is …if had the Mom decided not to abort,** the hospital or doctor, thrown her to the street.**.

Exactly, that’s why the ethics committee was called. You’re getting the picture now
The ethics committee determined that the woman needed the procedure in order to save her life, therefore the staff were free to continue with the prescribed treatment as ordered by the physician. In other words, the ethics committee agreed with and backed up the doctor and staff, and authorize the treatment, and did not deny the treatment. They gave approval for the treatment because it was called into question because the facility was Catholic. If it wasn’t a true emergency,they could have denied the procedure, and transferred the patient out, which the ethics committee also agreed wasn’t appropriate. That’s why the procedure was done, instead of being denied.

The Doctors mind was set - to abort
The legalities civil law ] AND secular medicine has used abortion as an “end to a means”, in treating PH before.

Yes, it’s a treatment offered depending on the patient’s status. In a secular hospital there would be no question as to whether or not the procedure was done, once the consent was given. But because the hospital was catholic, the ethics committee had to be called to weigh their options, because it can’t just deny the procedure if the patient is really in trouble and too sick to transfer out.

This Ethics committee was not called for any reason but to help change the Mom’s mind. IMO

It’s okay Kimmielittle, you can think that but it’s not their job. They don’t come down to the ER and try to talk patients into or out of getting procedures done. There is no reason for the Ethics Committee to do that. It’s the doctor’s job to diagnose and prescribe treatment and talk to the patient about their options.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Little Soldier, I “think” the opinions statement was meant to be a bit sarcastic. Much has changed in the past 40 to 50 years in the Catholic Church in regard to the respect given by the laity to our hierarchy. Not only do dissenting Catholics disregard what their diocesan prelate, Bishop/Archbishop/Cardinals say, or teach, many of the Bishops etc. dissent from following what the Church in Rome teaches. Many laity are not even aware that there is a hierarchy of prelates who are “supposed” to have power over decisions of morality. Most of the problem, again “I think” is the result of the hierarchy here in the US ignoring their job of leading their flocks. Many have become politicians, not spiritual leaders, to the detriment of the Church here in the US.

Yes, there should be a tie among the Bishop, the hospital and theologians, but progressive theologians have managed to break the tie, by disstenting from what the Bishops teach. This is a result of occurances that happened during and after Vatican II. During that time many progressive theologians had louder voices than orthodox Bishops and priests. These theologians began to push for the Protestantising of the Catholic Church. And they have succeeded in the majority of their efforst. Their take on the “new church” was what was allowed to be taught. The Church ran amok, with many clergy, “doing their own thing”. The biggie came when Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae and many clergy turned their backs on him. Confusion as to what should be taught is still alive and well because of the pride of some clergy.

I don’t know if you read this, but Catholic West, St. Joseph Hospital imported their “own” theologians to interpret Bishop Olmstead’s decision instead of what was truly taught by Bishop Olmstead. They wanted to salve their consciences by having a dissenting theologian tell them their, the hospital’s, interpretation of what happened and the reasoning behind it was theologically sound according to them. They even tried to say the abortion was a result of “double effect”, that the child was inadvertently aborted to save the life of the mother… Double effect means for instance, if the mother had a diseased placenta, or this was a tubal pregnancy, certain surgicfal procedures which may result in the loss of the life of the child may be done, but never a DIRECT abortion. Thank the Lord in Heaven, Bishop Olmstead stood his ground. Pray for him.

And I am. Thank you for your clarification. It reads almost like a horror story. We need to keep Protestant ideas and concepts out of Catholicism if they do not agree with Church teaching. With organizations like “Catholics for Choice” the teachings of the Church are watered-down or completely disregarded. But the True Church is still there and always will be. I am very proud of Bishop Olmstead and I thank God that he is not caving in because of secular pressures. I am not proud at all of another bishop in the news, but that’s a topic for another thread.

And you are correct - it was a direct abortion. The baby was intentionally killed.

This reminds me of the OJ Simpson case. It seems that Truth is shoved to the side and very well-paid attorneys “decide” what the truth is - at least in that particular case. If a person doesn’t care for his attorney’s approach,he can just fire that attorney and get a new one. And he should be sure to hire “experts” who will manipulate the evidence and findings to the point that the jury is completely at a loss. A hospital that wants to go against Church teaching but keep their affiliation with the Church can obtain theologians who are “expert” in Catholic theology.

Renegade theologians. Babies being killed. What a world we live in.

 

[LittleSoldier]

But this only applies to an individual when they believe in God or subscribe to the rules of the Church. There are other religions who do not come to the same conclusions when interpreting religious documents.

Don’t you believe the Catholic Church teaches Truth? Do you believe that Truth changes to fit the teachings of other churches - teachings that don’t agree with Catholic teachings? Is Truth one thing to atheists and another thing to Muslims?

Truth stands on its own. It’s not determined by consensus. It can’t be changed. I think a few posters in this thread are not aware of that.

By requiring civil laws to run in line with “divine law”, one would be creating a Catholic state.

By requiring civil laws to run in line with Divine Law in Catholic institutions, one would not be creating a Catholic state.

If every Catholic institution would do as you wish, they’d all be closed down from the wrongful death, negligence and malpractice suits.

So then, why don’t we change Church teaching so that it correlates with man-made laws? Why don’t Catholic hospitals provide abortions, contraception, sterilizations? What difference does Divine Law make? We’re talking here about people who want these services and the Church has absolutely no right to deny those services. What’s the Church doing by building all these hospitals anyway? The Church has no right to intrude into what should always be a secular business and/or organization.

Correct, sometimes a patient in crisis doesn’t have a choice with regards to the hospital the ambulance takes him or her to, or as in the case of remote locations, the time to get to a secular hospital. However, the hospital (Catholic or otherwise), that once receives such a patient is still required by law to stabilize the patient - and should always be required to do so. Doing nothing is not an option. Doing nothing is abandonment, negligence and grounds for a lawsuit, and that’s not going to change.

And no real Catholic hospital is going to provide direct abortions and that’s not going to change. Thank God.

 

[kimmielittle]

You want me to prove that someone called the ethics committee for approval? Um, your proof is the fact that the ethics committee was called, and made a decision…

I asked for proof that someone questioned the procedure. We have none.

Without evidence of it - we have the only two other players…The Mom and Doctor.

The Mom would contact the Ethics Committee if she disagreed with the treatment being advised by the Doctor.

The Doctor would call the Ethics Committee if the Mom refused his treatment on the grounds of her religious beliefs.

The woman consented to the procedure…end of story.

The Mom consented… AFTER the Ethics Committee met with Her and her Family. Hospital’s report ].

That alone, says the Ethics Committee was instrumental in this Mom’s decision.

That’s the point, that’s why the ethics committee was called on.

I suggest you rethink on this.

Had the Ethics Committee been called to approve the abortion as treatment - there was no need to meet with the Mom and Family. The Ethic Committee met with the Mom and Family to “sell” this abortion to a patient refusing it as treatment.

Yes, and for refusals for feeding tubes, ventilators, catheters, IV’s, immunizations. Yep, the patient can refuse any treatment as long as the patient is competent.

This patient was competent as evidenced by the Ethics Committee meeting with her.

Any liability toward Hospital or Doctor is removed by signing release - BUT that is not what this Ethics Committee was attempting to get from this patient or they would have procured it, without injecting their ethics. You send an administrator and a Notary as witness.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I think we all agree with the above.

I’m sure that would be the goal of those who are Jewish, Muslim, Baptist, and even athiests. People all wanted to be treated with their own values held at the highest level, just like Catholics do. All people hold their own values as important and “truth”, and everyone thinks the other guy has it wrong. So being that this is a secular world, that won’t be the goal of a secular hospital, despite some Catholics believing that even secular hospitals should follow Catholic rules and laws.

This being a secular world? Oy vey!! And that means that moral relativism is perfectly fine with you? I think I’ve already asked you if you believe the Church teaches Truth, so I won’t repeat that question (and you probably haven’t had time to even read that post anyway).

You are really coming across as a moral relativist. That is a dangerous position to take. Moral relativism leads to instability, chaos, and eventually a breakdown of civilization.

If you are Catholic you believe the Church teaches Truth. That Truth should not be restricted to Catholics. Truth applies to every single person, even those little babies being aborted. If the staff of a secular hospital wishes to perform a direct abortion, it is wrong. If the staff of a Presbyterian hospital offers contraception, it is wrong.

It is true that they have the man-made legal right to offer those services. That doesn’t make it OK with God. He gives us free will and unfortunately many people, some of them members of hospital staffs, use that free will to perform immoral procedures and offer immoral services.

It’s still wrong. It’s still immoral. It still goes against Divine Law.

Divine Law always trumps man-made law.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Elizabeth is not saying you have to refrain from using the term Divine Law in case there is a non-Catholic lurker an the forum. She’s saying that in regards to discussions with people who are not Catholic about topics they hold opinions on with secular values, or who aren’t willing to follow Catholic rules and laws, won’t help you win arguments because the term is not plausible to them, even if they do recognize the term. You can use the term all you like, but the term is important to you and other practicing Catholics, but you will have a hard time convincing your target audience if you can’t speak to them in ways they understand. And obviously your target is not a practicing Catholic… if a moslem was trying to convince me that I should adhere to a particular teaching by defining the teaching as “Moral Law” or “The Law of God”, I certainly wouldn’t give it any weight at all. He or she would have to come up with something that I can relate to, and being that I don’t accept one word of that religion, it wouldn’t work to just constantly cite that I should be following the laws of Islam. It would reach deaf ears…

Then simply replace “Divine Law” with "Universal Law.

But you are talking about non-Catholics when you say things like “hospitals should be run according to Catholic teaching”, or “all patients should be treated as Catholics”.

See, this is what bothers me. We know the Church teaches Truth, yet some people think that only Catholics should be treated according to Truth. And that’s not fair. Everyone should be treated according to Truth. All hospitals should be run according to Catholic teaching. All patients should be treated as Catholics.

And that includes that little patient in the Arizona case - the one that was murdered by the staff of a supposedly Catholic hospital. And that little patient didn’t consent to be murdered.

I would agree with you in the case of this nun and this hospital, as it’s now known that the Bishop has had quite a battle with them in an effort to make them conform to the rules of the Church. However, even though a particular group is claiming to be Catholic, such as a any Catholic hospital, they are still subject to civil law, and they are subject to the rights of others. That doesn’t mean that they abandon their values when they walk through the door by any means, or that they should give in to secular pressure to do whatever the patient wants but it does require them to give the patient what he or she needs medically, or they shouldn’t be in the medical field. It also means, they can’t take advantage of a non-Catholic patient in crisis and not provide the prescribed care in order to help them. A Catholic hospital, just like any other hospital, is accountible for each patient they admit through their doors and is responsible for stabilizing the patient.

Sooo…the hospital should provide direct abortions to non-Catholics but not provide them to Catholics?

If a Catholic hospital is sued for not adhering to a civil law that the Church considers immoral, so be it. That is what persecution is. Every Catholic runs the risk of persecution. We’re not the most loved people in the world; at least not by other people. That doesn’t matter. When I was slapped across the face during my Confirmation I was being taught that I might suffer for my beliefs as a Catholic and I accepted that risk. I still do. Every Catholic needs to be strong enough to not cave in to secular pressures. If the Church teaches Truth (and she does) then we have to stand up and proclaim that Truth and we have to act according to that Truth.

I can’t speak for Elizabeth on how she feels about the Bishop, but I think it was admirable to for him to stand up for his Church, and his actions were positive. However, I don’t believe it was wrong for the hospital to give the required treatment to this woman if her life was in danger and she was too sick to transport out, which they said was the case.

“His” Church? I was under the impression that you are Catholic. If you are Catholic you shouldn’t be condoning a treatment in which an innocent human being was intentionally murdered.

And I’m not concerned that the non-Catholic patients would think the staff at a hospital as being “too Catholic”, however, it would pain me to think that they wouldn’t go to a Catholic hopsital because they think the medical care there would be inadequate or substandard, or that it would be a dangerous place to go, especially when they are in crisis.

What do you mean by inadequate, substandard, dangerous? Can you give a few examples?

-----continued in next post-----

 

[Elizabeth502]

I myself havent’ been talking about non-Catholics in this thread.

When you talk about secular hospitals, you’re including non-Catholics. And when you’re talking about non-Catholic patients in Catholic hospitals, you’re including non-Catholics. They don’t necessarily have the background for the rationale behind Catholic morality, let alone do they subscribe to that. But again, this is a matter for informed consent docs.

You’re suggesting we cater to one group of people because we might offend them, scare them off, threaten them, etc. etc. But to our own, our fellow Catholics, all I’ve heard from you is how naive and illogical they are.

Bookgirl, when Catholic activists themselves admit that they’re prayer vigils aren’t doing a heck of a lot of good in overturning sexual libertinism and libertarianism in the American public, yet blow that off by insisting that only those who join them in prayer vigils are really sincere about moral change in the U.S., than I can in fact logically conclude that they are both naive and illogical. When goals are not matched by strategies, the people claiming those goals are either naive or delusional, regardless of how good that makes them feel. It’s legitimate to feel good about silent efforts and spiritual efforts, but the idea that those of us who actually want to communicate with the opposition, in words that the opposition understands – so that some effective dialogue can take place --, are somehow disloyal or suspect (which I pick in your tone, including in the post I’m quoting), is really insidious. Other activists really care about the ends being achieved, without compromising the moral framework (unlike what Scott Roeder did). There aren’t just two choices: (1) prayer or (2) murder of physicians. I don’t take a loyalty oath to you or to the particular methods that the current pro-life activisits take. My loyalty is to the Roman Catholic Church and her faith & tradition, and you don’t get to judge whether I’m in compliance with that because I suggest effective communication.

So now you have done it, claimed that someone did not have equally valid points.

Do you deliberately connect unconnected concepts? Or didn’t you understand the first time? I never said that people cannot have valid points because they have less education. They may have more education and invalid points, less education and valid points. The people demanding that no conversation by “real” Catholics can occur with the ‘pro-choice’ forces in the nation may or may not be educated and informed. That was not the issue. It was the idea that Catholicity requires putting your hands over your ears and sticking out your tongue at your opponents. That’s what immaturity requires, not an adult faith.

I’ve got to run now, which is why I’m signing off…

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continued from last post-----

I wouldn’t go to a Catholic hospital in a crisis, especially after gleening a bit of knowledge on online forums about how a handful people can get ten different interpretations of a same teaching – because if the staff were pracicing Catholics, they would be more concerned about following canon, and trying to interpret it, rather than taking care of my medical needs. It would be up to me to either refuse or consent treatment, but I want them concentrating on my medical needs, not on whether they are in compliance with what they think their religion is about.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the Church is concerned with your eternal life, while a secular hospital is concerned only with your mortal life? Would you accept that your child be directly aborted, in any type of medical situation you might find yourself in?

Now, I’ve never encountered that in the emergency room: people floundering around trying to interpret canon…they’ve always been taking care of ME and other patients. But these threads have proven to be quite an eyeopener for me. People “on the same side” are arguing about “serious” reasons for using NFP, there are conflicts amoung the “traditional Catholics” regarding end of life issues, and then of course, applying medical practices to canon law. It’s been quite an eye opener.

Would you care to elaborate on this? It sounds like you are considering leaving the Church.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It’s okay Kimmielittle, you can think that but it’s not their job. They don’t come down to the ER and try to talk patients into or out of getting procedures done. There is no reason for the Ethics Committee to do that. It’s the doctor’s job to diagnose and prescribe treatment and talk to the patient about their options.

And if the physician wants to perform a procedure that the patient is not willing to go through , the physician can call someone from the Ethics Committee and that someone can march down to the ER and have a little chat with the patient.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Didn’t I read that the patient and family refused to abort originally?

That should have been the end of it.

The Ethics Committee has no business trying to sway me.

When I started bleeding early in my first pregnancy my husband took me to the ER of the hospital on our insurance plan - a secular hospital. I was admitted and the physician came in to see me. He told me that I should have an abortion. I said “No, I’m Catholic” and he turned around and walked away.

That was the end of it. No abortion.

You’re correct. That should have been the end of it. I think too many physicians have a “God complex” and honestly don’t believe their patients have enough intelligence to make an informed decision.

 

[kimmielittle]

When I started bleeding early in my first pregnancy my husband took me to the ER of the hospital on our insurance plan - a secular hospital. I was admitted and the physician came in to see me. He told me that I should have an abortion. I said “No, I’m Catholic” and he turned around and walked away.

That was the end of it. No abortion.

You’re correct. That should have been the end of it. I think too many physicians have a “God complex” and honestly don’t believe their patients have enough intelligence to make an informed decision.

I can add even more weight to what I believe this Ethics Committee did.

Question: Knowing now this Hospitals record of presenting things hmmm not so forthrightly. - Do you think the Hospital brought this case to the Bishops attention - Or is it likely that a patient who felt the Ethics Committee took advantage of their health and pressured them into a choice they resisted, made it known?

Ethics Committees exists in Hospital to help protect Hospitals - NOT to bully patients to their Ethical views.