Catholic Health Association defends Ariz. hospital

[Elizabeth502]

You’re correct: it was a restatement of the medical history. I don’t think I said that it was lifted verbatim from the patient’s chart; that would be a violation of HIPA. What I meant by primary source (sorry for the confusion) is that the links included the statements made to the Bishop, as opposed to merely the Bishop’s summary of what he believed did or did not happen.

 

[bookgirl32]

You’re correct: it was a restatement of the medical history. I don’t think I said that it was lifted verbatim from the patient’s chart; that would be a violation of HIPA. What I meant by primary source (sorry for the confusion) is that the links included the statements made to the Bishop, as opposed to merely the Bishop’s summary of what he believed did or did not happen.

Then it is not a primary source.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes it is. It is not a primary source relative to the diagnoses, prognoses, and later action. It is a primary source relative to certain dialogue between the hospital and the Bishop.

 

[bookgirl32]

Yes it is. It is not a primary source relative to the diagnoses, prognoses, and later action. It is a primary source relative to certain dialogue between the hospital and the Bishop.

Then so is the Bishop’s letter.

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ I never said it wasn’t. But that’s why it’s important to access all available pieces of information – the Bishop’s and those from the hospital. That’s why, as I mentioned, I made sure to carefully listen to the entirety of his news conference and the related Q&A afterwards.

 

[bookgirl32]

^ I never said it wasn’t. But that’s why it’s important to access all available pieces of information – the Bishop’s and those from the hospital. That’s why, as I mentioned, I made sure to carefully listen to the entirety of his news conference and the related Q&A afterwards.

Well, you kind of did. You insinuated here (color change mine):

as opposed to merely the Bishop’s summary of what he believed did or did not happen.

that Bishop Olmsted was not as reliable as Lysaught.

 

[Elizabeth502]

No, they are equally important. The insinuations (negative) are actually yours, not mine. I prefer to get all the facts on all sides in order to proceed with understanding.

That’s why I did more than read the Bishop’s letter (or worse, just snippets of it). I viewed the entire news conference with the follow-up questions and answers.


To be Catholic is to be fully informed.

 

[bookgirl32]

How can I insinuate something when I didn’t say it? Calling Lysaught’s report of the medical files a “restating” and the Bishop’s report “merely (again, you’re word) his opinion of what might or might not have happened” seem to be insinuating that one person might be biased, and the other not, one objectively supporting the truth, the other wanting to see something that wasn’t there. I’m not saying that either couldn’t have been guilty of this, but . . . to be Catholic is also to recognize the authority of the Magesterium, which the Bishop has.

I would argue that, at least at this point, they are not equally important, considering that one has the authority of the Church behind him and the other merely (my word now) her opinion of what she read. To be Catholic is also to recognize the authority of the Church. The Bishop has it. Lysaught does not.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well naturally I never disputed the Bishop’s authority, and any poster who has bothered to become “fully informed” on that issue would have seen that I affirmed the Bishop’s authority already.

The word “merely” means only that. (i.e., not going beyond). You insinuated (not I) that it was a negative to use the word “merely.” I wasn’t questioning authority, merely asserting – and I assert it again – that multiple sources provide information from the parties, plural, involved, as opposed to merely one party – in a situation which at its very heart involves the issue of dialogue and conversation.

Again, it’s important to be fully informed, not partially informed, to be authentically Catholic. I’m sure you agree.

 

[bookgirl32]

Well naturally I never disputed the Bishop’s authority, and any poster who has bothered to become “fully informed” on that issue would have seen that I affirmed the Bishop’s authority already.

The word “merely” means only that. (i.e., not going beyond). You insinuated (not I) that it was a negative to use the word “merely.” I wasn’t questioning authority, merely asserting – and I assert it again – that multiple sources provide information from the parties, plural, involved, as opposed to merely one party – in a situation which at its very heart involves the issue of dialogue and conversation.

Again, it’s important to be fully informed, not partially informed, to be authentically Catholic. I’m sure you agree.

Well, no, I don’t agree with you. I do believe that it is important to be informed. But “fully informed” (on what, anyway) to be authentically Catholic? No. Someone who is baptized in the trinitarian form is “authentically” Catholic. And at the outset it requires no more than that. Beyond the age of reason are you required, to your ability, to be fully informed on what does or does not morally effect your soul in order to remain “authentically” Catholic? Yes. Are you required to be “fully informed” on an issue with which you are not personally involved and that which an ordained bishop of the Church that you have no reason to doubt has officially spoken to be “authentically Catholic”? No. It’s not bad for any of us to want to know the truth and want to be informed. But it would be sufficient for any “authentic” Catholic to simply read what the Bishop has to say, and believe him.

 

[bookgirl32]

in a situation which at its very heart involves the issue of dialogue and conversation.

And to this, I would say that it is a situation which involves at it’s very heart life and God’s sovereign ability and right to give or take it. An issue that a so-called Catholic hospital should take VERY seriously, seriously enough to consult at the very least a member of the clergy if not the final authority of the diocese in which it resides. Dialogue and conversation when it comes to spreading a pro-life message to those not willing to hear it? Sure. Dialogue and conversation when it comes to an officially recognized Catholic hospital performing an abortion with the permission of, “merely”, a nun, regardless of the circumstances? No.

I’m sorry to seem so contrary about this but I have very little patience when apparently not even a priest was consulted. If I can consult a priest about my own soul’s well-being then you would think a hospital acting upon not only the health of two human’s bodies and more importantly their souls (as a Catholic hospital) would do so as well.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No, they are equally important. The insinuations (negative) are actually yours, not mine. I prefer to get all the facts on all sides in order to proceed with understanding.

They are not “equally important.” One opinion is from a theologian, the other is from a bishop. One is a lay person trained in theology. The other is part of the Magisterium of the Church and the sole authority within his diocese.

Big difference.

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ You thoroughly misunderstand me, Brother. Knowing what transpired on both sides is what is equally important. I’m talking about knowledge and informed Catholics. This is the same argument that JREducation made regarding the controversy surrounding the “condom” comments by the Pope. In fact, I will argue that one cannot put the Catholic moral stance in proper perspective without having the full picture. In that sense, you’d better believe that the entire spectrum of information is all important.

Simply reading a Bishop’s statement out of context is not sufficient, i.m.o.

Again, as I already said, I never made any statement that put equal weight on authority.

 

[ProVobis]

I couldn’t access the link provided. Here is a link to an article that relates to the CHA’s statement.

ncronline.org/news/catholic-health-association-backs-phoenix-hospital

Olmstead clearly has authority to determine what is or is not the interpretation of Catholic moral teaching for his diocese, and thus for institutions located in his diocese. However, the way that he exercised that authority in this case, so publicly and in such a heavy-handed manner, seems wrong to me.

More substantively, the “right answer” to the real-life moral dilemma faced by the hospital is far from clear-cut, despite the insistence of Bishop Olmstead and many who post on CA forums. The hospital sought to save both lives, and failing that, the life of the mother. Forcing the mother to continue the pregnancy almost certainly would have killed both mother and child. That cannot be the right answer, the moral answer.

Perhaps the U.S. bishops will back Olmstead and decide that no CHA hospital is a Catholic hospital any longer. I’d be willing to guess that a complete audit of hospital practices in similar cases will turn up many more women who were saved from death yet lost their unborn children as a result. Obviously, to many bishops like Olmstead, this is unacceptable. Or perhaps “don’t ask, don’t tell” will be the standard operating procedure in other dioceses.

I’ve read several accounts of this and I’ve read the comments here but I see another problem. They take the Catholic title away and pregnant women will be coming to this clinic for routine abortions. Leave the Catholic title in and fewer pregnant women will be admitted to the clinic. I’m not saying what the bishop did was wrong, he did what he had to do but I think the PR on this is terrible.