Obviously they are not. However, since Sr. Margaret McBride had been an executive level employee of the hospital before the controversy which enveloped them both, it does seem likely that persons at the hospital (which was founded by her religious order) are in occasional contact with her. The hospital’s statement is not authoritative, but it may be the only public statement on the matter. My guess is that Sr. Margaret, her order, and the bishop of the diocese where she is living are not likely to talk publicly about the matter to avoid further controversy.
The news reports were, by and large, grotesque fabrications. Furthermore it doesn’t matter if the mother has a 100% chance of dying. It is better to do anything else in one’s power and accept death if it comes than to deliberately kill one patient as the means to treating another patient’s condition.
As noted this says nothing as to whether she is “alright” with the Bishop. She excommunicated herself and left the diocese. She’s no longer my bishop’s see.
It’s even worse than that. Additionally innocents were scandalized and what was once the foremost Catholic hospital in my home city remains under sanction for procuring a direct abortion. There are no masses at St. Joseph’s hospital and the Eucharist may not be kept in repose in the hospital’s chapel.
No. What’s easy is avoiding the question by making presumptions that someone is “moralizing from afar” and is far removed from that position.
That’s why we have moral standards that are higher than our own foolish emotionalism.
The facts of the case (that the medical staff stopped and consulted with management) made it clear that this was not a split-second life-and-death decision. If the patient wanted care outside the scope of ethical Catholic medicine Banner Good Samaritan Hospital is literally 5 minutes down the street and they have no such compunctions.
Painful? Certainly. It is difficult to refuse to do evil when that decision leads to suffering for ourselves and our loved ones. It is not difficult to tell right from wrong (if one is acting as an authentic agent of Catholic teaching like St. Joseph’s Hospital was supposed to be) when the Church teaching is clearly laid out.
“Foolish emotionalism”
It’s not “insider information.” It’s basic due diligence instead of taking the same-old anti-Catholic bile as unbiased and thorough journalism.
The mother actually had a situation of exacerbating a medical condition that’s not particularly exotic or unusual, which has been successfully treated on many occasions by hospitalization until the baby is viable and then delivering the baby. Abortion is commonly undertaken because it is less risky (not to mention much less expensive). That’s no excuse.
No Catholic hospital has the right (morally or legally) to restrain a patient from seeking services from another hospital, nor do they have the right to withhold that information from a patient.
It would’ve been moral to treat both patients. If they had both died it would’ve been unfortunate. Unfortunate, sad, and even painful are not the same thing as immoral. Our moral obligation is to refrain from doing evil, not to avoid suffering.
It is definitely in Bishop Olmsted’s pastoral mission to rightly inform St. Joseph’s hospital that they have condemned themselves by committing such evil in contradiction to canon law and authoritative papal teaching.