Ill. judge throws out rule on contraception

[LemonAndLime]

Again, here is your post.
At the end is your question.

You state that: abortions [if/when done] at the emergency room/accident and emergency wards, it is a life-or-death issue and the mother’s life is in danger, and the treatment the mother requires has to be carried out immediately.

You ask: What scenario did you imagine where it would be impossible for a Catholic nurse to work at an emergency ward?

I respond: in that very situation! A Catholic nurse can NOT be willing to be a part of any abortion, “emergency treatment” or otherwise. It is precisely that simple. What part of that don’t you understand?

I understand what you are saying perfectly. A Catholic nurse/doctor is permitted to treat a woman in a life and death scenario even if the only treatment option available will lead to the death of a foetus. A doctor/nurse cannot directly cause an abortion, but if the treatment may/could/will lead to the body miscarrying or the child being lost during the treatment of the mother, that is permissable as the doctor has a duty of care to both the mother and the child - if the doctor/nurse cannot save both, they must save one.

This was discussed at a thread I began a few months back, and was the conclusion of several pro-life Catholic members. I didn’t want to have to type it all out as I’m very busy but it appears you won’t let the matter rest.

 

[catharina]

I understand what you are saying perfectly. A Catholic nurse/doctor is permitted to treat a woman in a life and death scenario even if the only treatment option available will lead to the death of a foetus. A doctor/nurse cannot directly cause an abortion, but if the treatment may/could/will lead to the body miscarrying or the child being lost during the treatment of the mother, that is permissable as the doctor has a duty of care to both the mother and the child - if the doctor/nurse cannot save both, they must save one.

This was discussed at a thread I began a few months back, and was the conclusion of several pro-life Catholic members. I didn’t want to have to type it all out as I’m very busy but it appears you won’t let the matter rest.

If you are speaking of the approved treatment for ectopic pregnancy, I’m fully aware.
The surgery undertaken is to save the life of the mother, if possible.

Other exceptions to the rule?
None exists. If you believe otherwise,
then you have been badly misinformed.

I’ve been a part of CA for four years
and have stayed current with all pro-life threads.
If I missed one, I’d be very surprised.

You’re very busy?
Who isn’t?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Get used to it around here, Lemon. I said I can’t stand Sarah Palin on another thread and someone said that anyone against sweet Sarah is up to their knees in dead baby carcasses being in favor of abortion/infantacide…

Not necessarily. It takes between 12-24 hours for the sperm to fertilise the egg, so if its within that time period there is no killing and I have heard of that being permissable, but that is beside the point.

The issue is clear cut for you, but perhaps not to everyone else. It is sad that they had to go to court to stop it, I am on the side of this pharmacists (so I wish everyone would stop suggesting I am not!) but there is an issue of the rights of the pharmacist conflicting with the rights of the patient to receive treatment (and they do have a right to receive this treatment in law so you cannot dispute that). Whether you consider abortion/contraception a treatment is besides the point because this ethical issue could also be applied to the other scenarios I gave in my initial post. I believe that no one’s rights should “trump” another person’s rights and this applies to this scenario.

A few people have accused me of suggesting that killing babies is healthcare, but perhaps some people should re-read my post and not jump down my throat and accuse me.

 

[LemonAndLime]

If you are speaking of the approved treatment for ectopic pregnancy, I’m fully aware.
The surgery undertaken is to save the life of the mother, if possible.

Other exceptions to the rule?
None exists. If you believe otherwise,
then you have been badly misinformed.

I’ve been a part of CA for four years
and have stayed current with all pro-life threads.
If I missed one, I’d be very surprised.

You’re very busy?
Who isn’t?

So the basic summary of your thread is - I am right, but you are now implying that I was suggesting there were other exceptions to the rule.

However, your last assertion intrigues me. That none exists, that you know of. Are you sure an ectopic pregnancy is the only situation in which the foetus is endangering the life of the mother and any treatment of the mother may lead to a medically caused miscarriage?

This thread is descending into a pro-life campaign thread which ultimately ends up destroying itself with people accusing others of not being pro-life enough because they disagree, or not being a good Catholic therefore I refuse to participate in this thread until the topic moves on from a witch hunt to something with actual substance, thank you.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Get used to it around here, Lemon. I said I can’t stand Sarah Palin on another thread and someone said that anyone against sweet Sarah is up to their knees in dead baby carcasses being in favor of abortion/infantacide…

See the last paragraph in my post above

I have seen that happen before, and of course! Why is that an unreasonable assertion to make?!

 

[kimmielittle]

Get used to it around here, Lemon. I said I can’t stand Sarah Palin on another thread and someone said that anyone against sweet Sarah is up to their knees in dead baby carcasses being in favor of abortion/infantacide…

I’m as pro-life as I can be… And I’m happy She is.

But I don’t seem to be able to “cotton up” to her.

 

[catharina]

So the basic summary of your thread is - I am right, but you are now implying that I was suggesting there were other exceptions to the rule.

However, your last assertion intrigues me. That none exists, that you know of. Are you sure an ectopic pregnancy is the only situation in which the foetus is endangering the life of the mother and any treatment of the mother may lead to a medically caused miscarriage?

This thread is descending into a pro-life campaign thread which ultimately ends up destroying itself with people accusing others of not being pro-life enough because they disagree, or not being a good Catholic therefore I refuse to participate in this thread until the topic moves on from a witch hunt to something with actual substance, thank you.

Regrets if you’re saying buh-bay, but you’ve said you’re very busy.

I’m simply waiting for the ‘many’ (?) instances wherein you find
it proper for Catholics to participate in ending the life of a baby in-utero.

Until then, you have only discreditied yourself, not me.

 

[Rence]

However, your last assertion intrigues me. That none exists, that you know of. Are you sure an ectopic pregnancy is the only situation in which the foetus is endangering the life of the mother and any treatment of the mother may lead to a medically caused miscarriage?
.

Traumas would be included in those situations in which the fetus is sometimes lost while the woman is being treated for injuries. And of course, we don’t know all the senarios that might result in ending a pregnancy due to medical treatments being done to save a woman. The world is a big place, with many people, and all those people don’t share the same medical status. No one in their right mind would claim that ectopic pregnancy is the only “valid” situation in which the fetus is lost while treating the woman…

 

[catharina]

Traumas would be included in those situations in which the fetus is sometimes lost while the woman is being treated for injuries. And of course, **we don’t know all the senarios that might result in ending a pregnancy due to medical treatments being done to save a woman. The world is a big place, with many people, and all those people don’t share the same medical status. **No one in their right mind would claim that ectopic pregnancy is the only “valid” situation in which the fetus is lost while treating the woman…

Fine, rence, name some.
As many as possible.

 

[Rence]

Can you provide us evidence of this, please?

Can you provide evidence that woman have been denied treatment because it was “against the religion” of the doctor or nurse which has resulted in her death? And that no disciplinary action was taken on the doctor or nurse as a result of neglect because of this?

Because you are not only protected by conscious clause, but by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by public and private employers on the basis of religion.

Can you provide us with evidence that a nurse has refused to treat a patient with a procedure because it “went against her religion”, which resulted in a patient’s death, and that the nurse never received any disciplinary action as a result of this neglect?

The emergency being what? This hypothetical only could exist if there were no other nurses / doctors present…no time to get one.

Unfortunately, there is no master list of “emergencies”. Emergencies are determined by the doctor examining the patient. The doctor then orders treatment appropriate for the patient, and the nurse assigned the patient is responsible for carrying out the ordered treatment. If the treatment goes against her grain, yes, she can ask for a reassignment. If hypothetically there is no one available because they are otherwise tied up, or she can find no one available to switch assignments with, she is responsible for carrying out the treatment ordered or she will face disciplinary action. Usually nurses help each other out when a fellow nurse has issue with a senario.

So a victim of rape let’s say ] is admitted to the emergency room…staffed by 1 doctor and 1 nurse. Patient requests Plan B. Doctor recuse himself …c’mon. He doesn’t abandon the patient - What does he do?

If the doctor didn’t prescribe it, the patient can go elsewhere. We’re talking about nurses refusing to carry out orders given by a physician. At least I am. With regards to a doctor not prescribing plan B, I don’t believe it’s a standing order, or part of a rape kit. Therefore, a doctor doesn’t have to prescribe it. And you’re talking about a hypothetical…I don’t know of any emergency room that has one doctor and one nurse available. Plus, there are always doctors on call for emergencies.

Now, you act like this doesn’t happen in Catholic Hospitals…A rape victim admitted - Patient requests Plan B…Are you trying to say Catholic Hospitals don’t see these cases?

I don’t know too many people who would go to a Catholic hospital if they were raped, especially if they think they will be hassled when receiving care there. However, I have worked in a Catholic hospital, and I know that the doctors who worked in the ER did not have plan B in that hospital. The doctors gave the patient a written prescription for plan B and told them which pharmacies they could go to in order to have it filled. All the other hospitals were secular and had plan B, and gave it to rape victims upon their request. You’re forgetting that doctors who have priviledges in hospitals are not employees of the hospital, and that they are independent, and of course, not all Catholic.

Because of your illogical logic of a nurse, with a conscious, should only work in a Catholic Hospital - you must mean that Catholic Hospitals abandon the patient.

Actually, they don’t abandon the patient. They care for the patient and deal with any heat later.

If you can’t convince me that you don’t have choices - how can you expect to convince grwnups?

I am not trying to convince you at all. You have the right to believe as you wish, and no one, at least I am not trying to change your mind. Just sharing my experiences.

If you are looking for me to validate that you have no choices …

Everyone has choices, at least on this part of the planet

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

I once worked at a church in which the pastor asked me to do something that was entirely anti-Catholic and I could not do in good conscience. I refused to do it. It doesn’t matter that the authority figure in question wanted me (as an employee) to do it because there was a higher authority (the Church) that said otherwise. As a result, I was edged out of my position until I was forced to resign.

So what about the nurse and the doctor scenario? The doctor orders the nurse to do something, but the nurse refuses. Why? The doctor is the authority figure, right? She should obey him! Wrong! People are forgetting that nobody, no matter what kind of authority they have, has the right to do, or order someone to do, something that is morally wrong (EVIL for those who don’t realize what morally wrong means). In the case of the abortion, that is wrong regardless. It is NEVER permissible to intentionally snuff the life of an innocent person (no matter the age) with the supposed reason of saving another. This should be common sense to any person claiming to be Catholic.

I find it highly disturbing that those who work in healthcare facilities would ever prescribe killing another person as treatment. I also find it highly disturbing that people who are labeled as Catholic actually make attempts to defend this.

 

[catharina]

Can you provide evidence that woman have been denied treatment because it was “against the religion” of the doctor or nurse which has resulted in her death? And that no disciplinary action was taken on the doctor or nurse as a result of neglect because of this?

Can you provide us with evidence that a nurse has refused to treat a patient with a procedure because it “went against her religion”, which resulted in a patient’s death, and that the nurse never received any disciplinary action as a result of this neglect?

Unfortunately, there is no master list of “emergencies”. Emergencies are determined by the doctor examining the patient. The doctor then orders treatment appropriate for the patient, and the nurse assigned the patient is responsible for carrying out the ordered treatment. If the treatment goes against her grain, yes, she can ask for a reassignment. If hypothetically there is no one available because they are otherwise tied up, or she can find no one available to switch assignments with, she is responsible for carrying out the treatment ordered or she will face disciplinary action. Usually nurses help each other out when a fellow nurse has issue with a senario.

If the doctor didn’t prescribe it, the patient can go elsewhere. We’re talking about nurses refusing to carry out orders given by a physician. At least I am. With regards to a doctor not prescribing plan B, I don’t believe it’s a standing order, or part of a rape kit. Therefore, a doctor doesn’t have to prescribe it. And you’re talking about a hypothetical…I don’t know of any emergency room that has one doctor and one nurse available. Plus, there are always doctors on call for emergencies.

I don’t know too many people who would go to a Catholic hospital if they were raped, especially if they think they will be hassled when receiving care there. However, I have worked in a Catholic hospital, and I know that the doctors who worked in the ER did not have plan B in that hospital. The doctors gave the patient a written prescription for plan B and told them which pharmacies they could go to in order to have it filled. All the other hospitals were secular and had plan B, and gave it to rape victims upon their request. You’re forgetting that doctors who have priviledges in hospitals are not employees of the hospital, and that they are independent, and of course, not all Catholic.

Actually, they don’t abandon the patient. They care for the patient and deal with any heat later.

I am not trying to convince you at all. You have the right to believe as you wish, and no one, at least I am not trying to change your mind. Just sharing my experiences.

Everyone has choices, at least on this part of the planet

Post # 176. Please read it, rence.
As curtjester has just affirmed, at times,
BECAUSE WE ARE CATHOLIC,
we must refuse to take an action.

If you are waiting for a get-out-of-jail free card,
don’t hold your breath. Quite simply, there are
times when we MUST stand AGAINST orders, directives.

Yes, even when it will cost us our jobs.
How can you fail to accept that fact???

 

[catharina]

I once worked at a church in which the pastor asked me to do something that was entirely anti-Catholic and I could not do in good conscience. I refused to do it. It doesn’t matter that the authority figure in question wanted me (as an employee) to do it because there was a higher authority (the Church) that said otherwise. As a result, I was edged out of my position until I was forced to resign.

So what about the nurse and the doctor scenario? The doctor orders the nurse to do something, but the nurse refuses. Why? The doctor is the authority figure, right? She should obey him! Wrong! People are forgetting that nobody, no matter what kind of authority they have, has the right to do, or order someone to do, something that is morally wrong (EVIL for those who don’t realize what morally wrong means). In the case of the abortion, that is wrong regardless. It is NEVER permissible to intentionally snuff the life of an innocent person (no matter the age) with the supposed reason of saving another. This should be common sense to any person claiming to be Catholic.

I find it highly disturbing that those who work in healthcare facilities would ever prescribe killing another person as treatment. I also find it highly disturbing that people who are labeled as Catholic actually make attempts to defend this.

Truly, I applaud you!
Yes, the double-think is astounding.
It is also profoundly sickening.

There’s seems to be a blind spot among some who
think that they are entitled to become Less Than CATHOLIC,
because their jobs expect that of them. It’s disgusting.

 

[Suudy]

Actually, you have. Remember the recent Arizona case in which the woman had pulmonary hypertension and was being treated on an emergent basis in a Catholic hospital? Her doctor examined her and found her to be in need of an abortion in order to relieve the phsyiological stresses that the pregnancy was causing, due to underlying pulmonary hypertension. The ethics committee was consulted, and sided with the doctor. The procedure was done on an emergent basis as they ruled out transferring her to another facility because she was too sick.

And if you remember right, Bishop Olmstead declared the nun involved had excommunicated herself.

Everyone not involved in the case can banter back and forth over whether this woman had a true emergency, or whether or not the case was warranted even to begin with. But outside of everyone’s own personal world, there’s a medical world, and the medical world gives the responsibility of calling emergencies to the doctors assigned to patients. That woman’s doctor called an emergency, and ordered an emergency treatment and stated that she would have died without the procedure, and had the backing of an ethics committee. The fact is, a woman wound up in the ER of a Catholic hospital, and an emergency procedure resulting in terminating the pregnancy was done to help her recover and live longer, and they had doctors and staff present to be involved and carry out the doctor’s orders, in agreement with the ethics committee. Whether the staff was Catholic or not, they had to take care of their patient and stabilize her. They are not allowed to sit back and watch her die. They know this. That’s why they treated her as ordered and took the heat later.

The problem wasn’t the end. Nobody denied that she was in distress that was related to her pregnancy. Nobody denies that the abortion helped save her life. And I don’t think anyone thinks that the pregnancy should not have been terminated.

The issue was the means. The direct, intentional destruction of an innocent human life made this an evil. What was never revealed is how the abortion took place. It seems that Bishop Olmstead did think it was a direct abortion, which according to Church teaching is NEVER permissible. It doesn’t matter than some ethics committee thought it was OK. It doesn’t matter that the nun made an effort to determine if it was ethical. Objectively speaking, it seems that it was a direct abortion. And had the ethics committee and the nun been properly catechized, they would have taken steps to insure that the pregnancy was terminated in a way that did not directly intend the death of the child.

The end does NOT justify the means. And any nurse, doctor, or other caregiver that knew this was a direct abortion and willfully participated is guilty of formal cooperation in abortion and is excommunicated. Sorry, but no nurse should be required by law to be an accessory to an evil.

Finally, I think a lot of the disconnect on this issue is related to how this requirement to participate is implemented. The issue here is the requirement by law that nurses act directly contrary to their consciences. For my part, I think that any employer should be able to make certain regulations for employment. But the law should not compel such a person to act in such a way. For example, if an employer were to make it part of its policy that all ER nurses must be willing to participate in abortions, I think it should be allowed to do so (hence, I’m against conscience clauses). However, I do not think employees or employers should be compelled by law to act in such a way. If a hospital wants to refuse to perform abortions or administer Plan B, it should be allowed to do so.

 

[catharina]

And if you remember right, Bishop Olmstead declared the nun involved had excommunicated herself.

The problem wasn’t the end. Nobody denied that she was in distress that was related to her pregnancy. Nobody denies that the abortion helped save her life. And I don’t think anyone thinks that the pregnancy should not have been terminated.

The issue was the means. The direct, intentional destruction of an innocent human life made this an evil. What was never revealed is how the abortion took place. It seems that Bishop Olmstead did think it was a direct abortion, which according to Church teaching is NEVER permissible. It doesn’t matter than some ethics committee thought it was OK. It doesn’t matter that the nun made an effort to determine if it was ethical. Objectively speaking, it seems that it was a direct abortion. And had the ethics committee and the nun been properly catechized, they would have taken steps to insure that the pregnancy was terminated in a way that did not directly intend the death of the child.

The end does NOT justify the means. And any nurse, doctor, or other caregiver that knew this was a direct abortion and willfully participated is guilty of formal cooperation in abortion and is excommunicated. Sorry, but no nurse should be required by law to be an accessory to an evil.

Finally, I think a lot of the disconnect on this issue is related to how this requirement to participate is implemented. The issue here is the requirement by law that nurses act directly contrary to their consciences. For my part, I think that any employer should be able to make certain regulations for employment. But the law should not compel such a person to act in such a way. For example, if an employer were to make it part of its policy that all ER nurses must be willing to participate in abortions, I think it should be allowed to do so (hence, I’m against conscience clauses). However, I do not think employees or employers should be compelled by law to act in such a way. If a hospital wants to refuse to perform abortions or administer Plan B, it should be allowed to do so.

You might want to add that the hospital in question no longer a Catholic hospital.
The defiance and denial was so entrenched that soon after the actual abortion,
the hospital lost its standing as a Catholic hospital.

It had destroyed its own credibility as to holding a Catholic ethical viewpoint.

 

[estesbob]

Get used to it around here, Lemon. I said I can’t stand Sarah Palin on another thread and someone said that anyone against sweet Sarah is up to their knees in dead baby carcasses being in favor of abortion/infantacide…

You said you voted for the most pro-abortion President in history because you didn’t like Sarah Palin. Your actions speak for themselves

 

[kimmielittle]

You said you voted for the most pro-abortion President in history because you didn’t like Sarah Palin. Your actions speak for themselves

Aha…a bit different story.

 

[kimmielittle]

I once worked at a church in which the pastor asked me to do something that was entirely anti-Catholic and I could not do in good conscience. I refused to do it. It doesn’t matter that the authority figure in question wanted me (as an employee) to do it because there was a higher authority (the Church) that said otherwise. As a result, I was edged out of my position until I was forced to resign.

So what about the nurse and the doctor scenario? The doctor orders the nurse to do something, but the nurse refuses. Why? The doctor is the authority figure, right? She should obey him! Wrong! People are forgetting that nobody, no matter what kind of authority they have, has the right to do, or order someone to do, something that is morally wrong (EVIL for those who don’t realize what morally wrong means). In the case of the abortion, that is wrong regardless. It is NEVER permissible to intentionally snuff the life of an innocent person (no matter the age) with the supposed reason of saving another. This should be common sense to any person claiming to be Catholic.

I find it highly disturbing that those who work in healthcare facilities would ever prescribe killing another person as treatment. I also find it highly disturbing that people who are labeled as Catholic actually make attempts to defend this.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

It’s as bad as this defense was:

“I was ordered to go in there and destroy the enemy. That was my job that day. That was the mission I was given. I did not sit down and think in terms of men, women and children. They were all classified as the same, and that’s the classification that we dealt with over there, just as the enemy. I felt then and I still do that I acted as I was directed, and I carried out the order that I was given and I do not feel wrong in doing so.”

William Laws Calley (born June 8, 1943) is a convicted American war criminal and a former U.S. Army officer found guilty of murder for his role in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley

 

[GEddie]

I believe that no one’s rights should “trump” another person’s rights and this applies to this scenario.

Civil society is inherently a concatenation of situations in which “rights” trump other “rights.” The classic example being, your “right” to swing your arm around ends where somebody else’s nose begins. His right to an unbroken nose trumps your right to free movement at that instant.

The civil society’s “right” to collect taxes trumps your “right” to keep what you have properly earned.

Someone’s “right” not to be slandered or libelled trumps somebody else’s “right” to free speech.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

If rights never trumped other rights, there would be no civil society at all.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[Holly3278]

This is definitely good news and while it is a step in the right direction, I’d rather they just simply ban the sale of contraceptives completely.