What was his response? Lila Rose is in a good position to respond to women’s view that it is their body and that it’s their choice. It’s because it is their body and their choice, that they should know all of their options and know that they’re not alone, and know that they can make the right choice and get support for doing so.
Saying that Doctor so-and-so does abortions is not in the same class of “dicrimination” as giving out information on the doctor’s religion or race. If it’s a Catholic hospital, they could easily have as part of their referral agreement that doctors who perform procedures that are against Church teaching will not get preferrence in the referral rotation or that such doctors must disclose these activities to potential patients.I didn’t mean it as in a certain class of individual. What I mean is, for example, if a woman calls a hospital and asks for a referral for an ob-gyn, and the referral officer only refers certain doctors, or says something like, “Dr. So and so is here in our offices, but he performs abortions”, Or “but he’s not Catholic”, or “he’s jewish by the way”, or “but,he’s an atheist”, it may come back to bite the hospital. They may also have a contract with the hospital with regards to treating the physicians equally with regards to referrals. Having physicians with privelidges in a hospital is a mutually beneficial arrangement, one that can be severed if a particular doctor finds out that he is not being referred equally in favor of another doctor, or there is a “but he does abortions”, or “but he prescribes birth control”, or “he’s an atheist” as a post script to the referral. The doctor sends his patients to a hospital for labwork, tests, outpatient as well as (name removed by moderator)atient procedures. It’s in the interest of the hospital to send referrals to those doctors in the hopes that the physician will use their hospital when ordering tests and procedurees for that patient. They both benefit from the business relationship. Perhaps that’s why, when I call for referrals, I’m given a list and it’s up to me to choose which one. When they do this, they can’t be accused of showing partiality, or saying something negative about the phsyician.
I mean really, do you really get “he does abortions” when you call up for an ob-gyn referral? Seriously? I mean, I can understand them saying, “he’s Catholic” because it’s a Catholic institution we’re talking about. But I can’t see them discriminating on the basis of the fact that he’s Jewish, or Muslim, or an atheist, or performs sterilizations at John Doe Medical down the road, or dispenses birth control in his office
Yes, I agree that they can do that, and maybe they should do that. But then what doctor would be on staff at a hospital that didn’t use him/her for referrals? Remember, it’s a mutually beneficial business arrangement. They are on staff at the hospital and are on a list of referred doctors because they are on staff at that hospital, and in return they send their patients to that hospital for services. But I agree with you: it would resolve a lot of problems for the patient and the hospital if they would just do that.
It would be beneficial if there was an organization that does referrals for Catholic doctors as well as for Catholic therapists. Yes, the referral department of a Catholic hospital could do the same, you’re right. Yes, they could have such a policy you describe as well. They should do that. I imagine some physicians would agree to it and some would not, as always, but this system of referral would be beneficial to both the patients and the hospital.
I agree with you that it’s up to the patient to do their homework. And I do agree that if a Catholic hospital makes a referral, they should mention that the physician is Catholic or not.
There is NO choice to be made and you as a Catholic should know that.To even consider the legitimacy of "choice: is to give aid and comfort to the enemies of Life.Why do you consistently proselytize for “choice” when you know that it is anathema to Catholicism?It is no good to indicate that you are personally “against” abortion( you have stated on many occasions that you disagree with Church teaching on that subject but comply out of duty)and blithely speak about a woman’s choice to murder another human being for her convenience.I think that you are very conflicted and that you should completely align your conscience with Church Teaching for your own sake and others that you may be in the position to influence.As a Catholic and as a nurse you have a unique responsibility to present the Face of Christ in your profession.To those whom much is given,much is expected.
Having a choice is not against Catholic teaching. Life is full of choices. What is against Catholic teaching is making the wrong choices, such as abortion. Have you found that section of the CCC which denies a woman the right to consent or refuse medical treatment? I’m betting you haven’t. Have you found that section of the CCC that says another person can trump a patient’s rights to consent or refuse treatment? I’m betting you haven’t. And that’s because having the right to control what happens to one’s body is NOT contrary to Catholic teachings. What is contrary to Church teachings is procuring, performing, or assisting in abortion.
I’m not conflicted at all. I can understand the difference between 1) retaining rights over one’s own personhood and 2) making the wrong choices in conflict with Church teachings. When I speak about a woman’s choice, I refer to the woman’s right to consent or refuse medical treatment as prescribed by her physician.
It’s not a part of Catholic teaching to deny persons rights over their own body and personhood. You won’t find that anywhere in Church teaching. What is forbidden is having an abortion. People have the right to consent or refuse medical treatments as prescribed by their phsyician. What the Church forbids is abortion. No one should have their rights trumped by another person outside of themselves. No one should be able to speak for another with regards to consenting or refusing treatment. There is nowhere in Catholic teaching that says this is the way it should be. The truth is: abortion is forbidden by the Church, not free will.
She should continue to be the sole responsible party over her own body. The father of the child should not in any way have veto power over her medical decisions, unless he is her durable power of attorney, and even then, that doesn’t take effect unless she is incapable of making a decision for herself. Once she gives birth, they should both be responsible equally for decision making, unless the civil authorities have granted sole rights to one party.
I’m sorry that I miscommunicated over this ^ !
Ok, I have to stop you right there and respectfully disagree with you. If the man is going to disappear, it’s probably to her (and her unborn) benefit that he’s gone. She doesn’t need that kind of influence in her life. We need partners who will lift us up, not drag us down. But in most cirumcstances the woman has more accountability for her situation by not being married first before sleeping with a man. If women were to set the bar higher and get married first, and not just get married first, but get married to a person who shares her values and morals, she will be less likely to end up in a situation where she will be manipulated a deadbeat moron. In general people need to take marriage more seriously as the serious thing that it is, and not the disposable thing it has become…
She doesn’t have to be “alone” if she is married, but I stand firm that her rights to dictate her own medical decisions. I oppose any situation that would enable another person veto power over a woman’s medical decisions, and will fight it every step of the way.
But is that not a result of premarital sex?
In all fairness Elizabeth, of course she has to force paternity action. The State isn’t going to make a man responsible for a child until paternity is established which begins with her starting legal actions with the State. Maybe it depends on where you and I live? Because my ex-sister-in-law is feels very much empowered by the state with regards to collecting child support, both from my brother for their two children, and her last boyfriend and their child. In fact, she feels “sorry for them” and doesn’t take advantage of the benefits the State will give her by going after the fathers without any cost to her. I better make a clarification: my brother pays his child support, the other does not. According to her, all she has to do is report non-payment, and they will go after him at the State’s expense. They will garnish wages, issue warrants, etc. I have no idea how it is in the State I am in now, I haven’t researched it.
I agree with you there. I’m only saying that I don’t think that current laws reinforce consequences for men, for sex, nor actually do I think the Catholic strategy against abortion does much in that regard, either. It, also, emphasizes the woman the woman the woman, as if she alone willed both the sex and the conception.
Again, I didn’t say anything about “veto power.” In fact I indicated that too often subtle veto power (by the man) is used financially to abort, not bring to term.
Of course, but I think that paternity action should be without cost to her, including all this:
I think that should be true in all 50 States, and I would like to see more Catholic activism regarding this kind of angle than the current weaker strategies that are usually suggested.