In Theory: Should religion hold sway over medical treatments?

[MacBP]

How to spend their money? Don’t you mean the patients money? Between the tax breaks hospitals get, the public support they get, the money the patient would be paying both personally and through insurance…

I disagree with this line of reasoning.

Yes, Catholic hospitals receive assistance in operating. They receive that assistance in order to continue the work that falls within their mission statement. A hand therapy clinic, for example, receives public funding to engage in hand therapy. By accepting that money they are not obliged to, nor is there any expectations, that they will engage other forms of medicine. This is because we, as a society, largely agree that medical practitioners have a right to limit the scope of their practice.

We recognize that health care practitioners, may decline to perform procedures that fall outside of their mission even why they may technically have the capability to do so. In this situation, the hospital in question has chosen to limit its scope of practice not by a particular age range (as is the case with pediatric hospitals) or an area of anatomy (such as the aformentioned hand clinic), but by those practices and procedures acceptable to the Catholic faith.

“But what if the patient has no other choice”? I can’t think of a single commonly performed emergency procedure that would be prohibited by a Catholic hospital. Even in situations where you have a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother, my understanding of the law of double effect is that it permits Catholic healthcare providers to engage in actions which would preserve the life of the mother at expense of the life of her child.

The procedures that are left (abortion, sterilization, euthanasia and IVF) aren’t issues lend themselves to immediate, emergency situation. Is it possible that patients may have difficulty finding a hospitals that provide those services if they choose to avail themselves of them? Theoretically yes, but in practice if this was common place (and maybe not) I suspect we would be hearing about it. The fact that these are the types of cases which come to the fore suggests to me that this is most damning case they have. Even if patients were having difficulty finding the aforementioned services, it would seem to be that this would be a perfect opportunity for other healthcare providers to come and provide that services rather than forcing an organization to violate the principles of the founders and many of the donors.

Rather than forcing people who don’t agree with your beliefs to act according to your beliefs, it tends to be much easier to have people who do share your beliefs to perform that service.

 

[cycleman]

“But what if the patient has no other choice”? I can’t think of a single commonly performed emergency procedure that would be prohibited by a Catholic hospital.

What of the sexual assault victim (either non Catholic or non practicing Catholic) that arrives in bad shape in a catholic hospital (taken there by EMS, possibly unconscious) who asks for emergency contraception once she has been treated and is stable enough to direct her care? She didn’t have any choice as to where she was taken.

Or what about ectopic pregnancies? These are sometimes emergencies, and while a catholic hospital will treat the condition the only 'morally acceptable" treatment is one that unnecessarily (from a medical perspective) mutilates the woman’s fallopian tubes. They will not treat with the less invasive treatments of methotrexate or removal of the fetus because they say it is a direct abortion.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

What of the sexual assault victim (either non Catholic or non practicing Catholic) that arrives in bad shape in a catholic hospital (taken there by EMS, possibly unconscious) who asks for emergency contraception once she has been treated and is stable enough to direct her care? She didn’t have any choice as to where she was taken.

Or what about ectopic pregnancies? These are sometimes emergencies, and while a catholic hospital will treat the condition the only 'morally acceptable" treatment is one that unnecessarily (from a medical perspective) mutilates the woman’s fallopian tubes. They will not treat with the less invasive treatments of methotrexate or removal of the fetus because they say it is a direct abortion.

Do you believe they should be shut down for refusing those services?

 

[cycleman]

Do you believe they should be shut down for refusing those services?

No, I don’t think they should be shut down. I’m not sure what the solution is, quite frankly.

In the tube tying case that was the subject of this thread, it was elective and the patient could get it done somewhere else. All I argued for was informed consent. She should never have been in that hospital (assuming she had a choice) , even for the birth. Unless one believes in all of the church’s teachings with respect to sexuality and reproduction, one should steer clear of Catholic doctors and Catholic hospitals.

In the emergency situations, it is much more problematic. These people can presumably not be Catholic, and the bottom line is that they are being refused treatment of choice. And, due to urgency, the option to go down the street isn’t available.

Maybe a malpractice lawsuit is possible in some places. Perhaps the institutions shouldn’t receive government funding.

This is one of those clashing of rights situations, where to put it bluntly there is a winner and a loser. The doctor’s right to refuse to perform some procedure ends up (in the emergency situation at least) to be in direct conflict with the patient’s right to receive the procedure.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Unless one believes in all of the church’s teachings with respect to sexuality and reproduction, one should steer clear of Catholic doctors and Catholic hospitals.

Why presume to speak for all people? They can vote with their feet. The sad truth is, many Catholic hospitals take patients that many others choose not to treat or would prefer not to lose money on. If someone is getting PT, I don’t think they are worried about the sexuality statements. Its just not primary in most cases. If it is for you, feel free to go somewhere else, or make your own.

In the emergency situations, it is much more problematic. These people can presumably not be Catholic, and the bottom line is that they are being refused treatment of choice. And, due to urgency, the option to go down the street isn’t available.

stats would be helpful

Maybe a malpractice lawsuit is possible in some places. Perhaps the institutions shouldn’t receive government funding.

can I sue a doctor that promotes antiCatholic practices in a Catholic hospital? I’d like to, since it happened to me And my wife.

The doctor’s right to refuse to perform some procedure ends up (in the emergency situation at least) to be in direct conflict with the patient’s right to receive the procedure.

I’m not sure the ‘right’ to a specific procedure exists. You have the right to equal treatment not necessarily the treatments of your choice.

 

[cycleman]

Why presume to speak for all people? They can vote with their feet.

Not sure why you think I’m speaking for other people. I’m not, it’s my my personal view only just as is 99% of what is posted on CAF. Anyway, we agree on this. “Voting with your feet” and “steering clear of Catholic hospitals” for those who choose that option is exactly the same thing.

stats would be helpful

Here’s one study about access to emergency contraception at California Catholic hospitals. Bottom line, you are unlikely to get it even in cases of rape. Hopefully, police, EMS, and rape counselling centres do NOT direct victims to Catholic hospitals.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16051108

 

[SyroMalankara]

Here’s one study about access to emergency contraception at California Catholic hospitals. Bottom line, you are unlikely to get it even in cases of rape. Hopefully, police, EMS, and rape counselling centres do NOT direct victims to Catholic hospitals.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16051108

Anything more recent or comprehensive than a 13yr old study of 45 hospitals?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

No, I don’t think they should be shut down. I’m not sure what the solution is, quite frankly.

In the tube tying case that was the subject of this thread, it was elective and the patient could get it done somewhere else. All I argued for was informed consent. She should never have been in that hospital (assuming she had a choice) , even for the birth. Unless one believes in all of the church’s teachings with respect to sexuality and reproduction, one should steer clear of Catholic doctors and Catholic hospitals.

In the emergency situations, it is much more problematic. These people can presumably not be Catholic, and the bottom line is that they are being refused treatment of choice. And, due to urgency, the option to go down the street isn’t available.

Maybe a malpractice lawsuit is possible in some places. Perhaps the institutions shouldn’t receive government funding.

This is one of those clashing of rights situations, where to put it bluntly there is a winner and a loser. The doctor’s right to refuse to perform some procedure ends up (in the emergency situation at least) to be in direct conflict with the patient’s right to receive the procedure.

A catholic Hospital is not going to turn someone down (I hope) if they need a medical service at an emergency that they can provide. If the Hospital cannot do something due to conscience, why are they bound to perform something they object to on moral grounds? Because the government has a policy of tolerating procedures that the religious institution does not? Does the government decide what is right and wrong on medical and ethical questions now?

It seems the benefit of having more hospitals outweighs fining them or hampering them or potentially shutting them down for not doing a specific procedure. Also if a patient has a right to a procedure, any medical procedure, then Doctors no longer have rights because they are the only ones who can facilitate such rights. Doctors hence would be bound to provide any medical procedure for free. Medical services should not be rights so as to avoid this problem. They are a service. A necessary service that is good but not rights.