So much for choice

[bpbasilphx]

And freedom of conscience.

hotair.com/archives/2009/12/12/pro-life-nurse-forced-to-assist-an-abortion/

 

[Timothysis]

I read that last night. It is absolutely disgusting. If this involved anyone other than a Catholic and abortion this lady would be awarded a gazillion dollars.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I know that this is going to sound heartless and judgmental, but the Catholic/Christian response in that situation would have been to refuse to participate in the abortion. I can think of many reasons (for example, the family needing her salary) that the nurse caved in. The right response would perhaps require heroic behavior. We have come to a point that to be Catholic may be to put our livelihood on the line. In future it may be our lives. May God give us the grace to do so.

 

[ecce_ego]

I know that this is going to sound heartless and judgmental, but the Catholic/Christian response in that situation would have been to refuse to participate in the abortion. I can think of many reasons (for example, the family needing her salary) that the nurse caved in. The right response would perhaps require heroic behavior. We have come to a point that to be Catholic may be to put our livelihood on the line. In future it may be our lives. May God give us the grace to do so.

As the article said, she could have lost her nursing license for refusing. I don’t think it anyone can hold it against her that she caved. One is not culpable in sin if one is forced to do it.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Like the poster above, I find the fact that the nurse’s previously expressed conscientions objection not being respected was abominable and unprofessional of her superiors.

I do not blame the nurse at all.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

As the article said, she could have lost her nursing license for refusing. I don’t think it anyone can hold it against her that she caved. One is not culpable in sin if one is forced to do it.

I object to the use of the word “forced” in the article. What, did the doctor take her hand and physically control her movements? Impel would’ve been more appropriate. It’s clear she wasn’t forced into anything - she chose to cooperate after she was threatened. No one can be “forced” to sin since sin is an act of the free will. Evil can NEVER be performed for a good outcome even if it means losing a nursing license. You have to put this into perspective: a woman cooperated with murder to avoid POTENTIALLY losing her job. That is shallow but shows the depths of our human weakness.

 

[michaeldaniels]

Let us make no mistake…no one was forced to do anything…there is always a choice to be made. One choice is the right choice and one is the wrong…this nurse chose the wrong one. I would have refused…regardless of the consequences that may have come from it…such as getting fired or losing my license. We must be people of principle, ethics, and morals…“What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and to lose his soul”…in this case, gaining the whole world is the nurse retaining their job and license…end result, the act is still sinful and an objective evil. No matter the reasoning, and objective evil can never be committed and overlooked regardless of the situation. Read the story of St. Agnes…her committment to God and truth resulted in her Martyrdom…which I think we can both agree that losing ones life in pursuit of doing what is right is a lot stiffer penalty than losing ones job.

The nurse made her choice…and it was wrong.

 

[michaeldaniels]

Wrong, wrong, wrong…they had a choice…no one was forced to do anything

As the article said, she could have lost her nursing license for refusing. I don’t think it anyone can hold it against her that she caved. One is not culpable in sin if one is forced to do it.

 

[kage_ar]

As the article said, she could have lost her nursing license for refusing. I don’t think it anyone can hold it against her that she caved. One is not culpable in sin if one is forced to do it.

What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his own soul?

 

[seagal]

I agree with previous posters that we as Catholics should be prepared to stand on our principles, and the right thing to do would have been for the nurse to refuse to assist in the abortion, even risking her job and license. But not all of us are strong enough to do what we know is morally right; I know what ***I’d ***want to do , but I can’t say for sure I would be able to follow through. Even St. Peter caved in the end, as much as he repented later.

 

[Rence]

While I am Catholic and while abortion is not an option I would ever consider, as a nurse, I am obligated to give care. You are responsible for your patient. And if nurses were allowed to just not care for those they don’t like, or don’t agree with, they’d be doing all the time and there would be chaos with lawsuits all over the place. If you work in an institution that performs abortions, you risk having to participate in one in the case of an emergency and/or if no one else can work the case instead of you.

We do not know the circumstances of the surgery and for the nurse to have claimed that it was not a medical emergency was beyond the scope of her practice and inappropriate. That’s the physician’s call. I’d reserve judgement until the case is presented in court and pending the outcome.

And while there might have been “enough time” to call in a replacement for the nurse, they may not have been able to do so. It’s not always that easy to call in a replacement and usually when a nurse can’t work a shift, it’s the nurse’s responsiblity to find a replacement. The report didn’t indicate any efforts the nurse made to resolve the situation herself either. The nursing manager, charge nurse or whoever may have been involved in other more important duties at the time. Hospitals are busy places, units are short staffed, nurses not working are busy with other responsibilities. Again, we don’t know why she had to work the shift or care for that patient. In my experience, people do try to accomodate your beliefs and practices, however, it’s not always possible.

My suggestion to someone who does not want to take the chance of having to assist in an abortion, is to not work in an establishment that performs them.

 

[michaeldaniels]

But on the same token, it is illrelevant as to whether or not it was a medical emergency…you can not destroy one life in hopes of protecting another. We should not play God…

While I am Catholic and while abortion is not an option I would ever consider, as a nurse, I am obligated to give care. You are responsible for your patient. And if nurses were allowed to just not care for those they don’t like, or don’t agree with, they’d be doing all the time and there would be chaos with lawsuits all over the place. If you work in an institution that performs abortions, you risk having to participate in one in the case of an emergency and/or if no one else can work the case instead of you.

We do not know the circumstances of the surgery and for the nurse to have claimed that it was not a medical emergency was beyond the scope of her practice and inappropriate. That’s the physician’s call. I’d reserve judgement until the case is presented in court and pending the outcome.

And while there might have been “enough time” to call in a replacement for the nurse, they may not have been able to do so. It’s not always that easy to call in a replacement and usually when a nurse can’t work a shift, it’s the nurse’s responsiblity to find a replacement. The report didn’t indicate any efforts the nurse made to resolve the situation herself either. The nursing manager, charge nurse or whoever may have been involved in other more important duties at the time. Hospitals are busy places, units are short staffed, nurses not working are busy with other responsibilities. Again, we don’t know why she had to work the shift or care for that patient. In my experience, people do try to accomodate your beliefs and practices, however, it’s not always possible.

My suggestion to someone who does not want to take the chance of having to assist in an abortion, is to not work in an establishment that performs them.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

While I am Catholic and while abortion is not an option I would ever consider, as a nurse, I am obligated to give care. You are responsible for your patient. And if nurses were allowed to just not care for those they don’t like, or don’t agree with, they’d be doing all the time and there would be chaos with lawsuits all over the place. If you work in an institution that performs abortions, you risk having to participate in one in the case of an emergency and/or if no one else can work the case instead of you.

This isn’t healthcare, it’s murder. If noone else can do the work for you, that’s good because it’s one more life saved.

We do not know the circumstances of the surgery and for the nurse to have claimed that it was not a medical emergency was beyond the scope of her practice and inappropriate. That’s the physician’s call. I’d reserve judgement until the case is presented in court and pending the outcome.

If a doctor told you cut off the life support of the black man over there, and he regularly cut off the life support of black people just because, would you obey him?

And while there might have been “enough time” to call in a replacement for the nurse, they may not have been able to do so. It’s not always that easy to call in a replacement and usually when a nurse can’t work a shift, it’s the nurse’s responsiblity to find a replacement. The report didn’t indicate any efforts the nurse made to resolve the situation herself either. The nursing manager, charge nurse or whoever may have been involved in other more important duties at the time.

If they can’t find a replacement, how is that bad? Would the Lord say “The murder is okay this time since we can’t find anyone else to kill that baby”? .

In my experience, people do try to accomodate your beliefs and practices, however, it’s not always possible.

If they can’t accomodate your beliefs, too bad. The abortion just wouldn’t get preformed. (A good thing) This is not somewhere to compromise, the early Christians kept on being holy even though the Romans not only wouldn’t accomodate that, they persecuted them for it!

My suggestion to someone who does not want to take the chance of having to assist in an abortion, is to not work in an establishment that performs them.

That may have been the only place she could get a job. Avoiding working in a place like that is a good idea, just so the temptation’s not there, but wherever you work you should be ready to stand up for what’s right.

 

[Rence]

In the case of an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, the tube is removed. Removal of the tube is primary. Some Catholics claim it is an “abortion”. Removal of a tube was done way before Roe vs. Wade though. That’s the medical treatment for a tubal pregnancy - no matter what uninformed people might claim. That’s why I say, wait and see what the legal outcome is in this case. If the pregnancy was tubal, surgery is required. It is a medical emergency. Someone has to take care of that woman. If it’s your shift, that patient is yours.

We, as Catholics, cannot force our religious beliefs on non-Catholics. That’s what is so important about separating Church from State. If the majority of a governing body was not Christian based as it is today, we might be subject to a lot more than abortions or life support. If, for example, the majority of the governing body of legislation was JW, we’d be having this debate over blood products in the case of emergencies. If the majority of te governing body of legislation was Muslim, we might be debating clothing, or public punishments instead. Separation of church and state is important. Today, abortion (if that’s what it really was) is legal, and if it’s a procedure done in your hospital, your SOL if you can’t find a replacement. That’s not “tough” that’s the way it is. You abandon your patient, you lose your license.

If everyone would be able to not treat patients because of their religious beliefs, a lot of people would go without care. If your doctor is JW, and a synthetic blood replacement is not available, he/she would be guilty of malpractice, and neglect if he/she didn’t order a transfusion. And someone would be taking someone to court, just as in this case.

As to cutting off life support, that’s not the issue here. In addition, cutting off life support is not a medical emergency. It can wait until someone else gets there. Heck, the doctor can turn the machine off himself if that’s the case.

 

[chessmane4e5]

I object to the use of the word “forced” in the article. What, did the doctor take her hand and physically control her movements? Impel would’ve been more appropriate. It’s clear she wasn’t forced into anything - she chose to cooperate after she was threatened. No one can be “forced” to sin since sin is an act of the free will. Evil can NEVER be performed for a good outcome even if it means losing a nursing license. You have to put this into perspective: a woman cooperated with murder to avoid POTENTIALLY losing her job. That is shallow but shows the depths of our human weakness.

You are wrong, you can be forced to sin. The definition of mortal sin is

1. Grave Matter
2. Full Knowledge
3. Complete Consent

The nurse did not have Complete Consent. Therefore this was a Venial Sin.

We may argue that she could chose not to do it, but then she would have lost her job. You may say, “So What”. Well losing her job could have all kinds of ramifications.

Ultimately, God knows what the woman was thinking and feeling, not us.

 

[seagal]

In the case of an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, the tube is removed.

There was no mention of a tubal pregnancy. The news story said the woman was 22 weeks pregnant, which is very advanced. It couldn’t have been ectopic, the tube would have ruptured long before 22 weeks.

 

[kage_ar]

We, as Catholics, cannot force our religious beliefs on non-Catholics. That’s what is so important about separating Church from State.

Catholic law, Church law covers things like who officiates at a Catholic wedding and holy days of obligation, how Parishes are run - that is Catholic belief.

Law against murder, rape, stealing, contraception, those are moral law, natural law, and are binding on every human being who ever walked the face of the earth.

 

[JohnT58]

Possibly going off on a tangent, but one I believe is related. If the woman is granted a* right* to an abortion, then the nurse should have argued her rights to a relgion, religious beliefs, and freedom to religious expression. Arguing over the morals of abortion seems a null point, since it is permissable under the law. The rights of the child don’t matter, under the law, but, as I understand it, the right to religious freedom is. Would arguing the case for not assisting in an abortion under freedom of religion not be a good way to go? Any legal minds out there have any thoughts? Or has this already been tried?

 

[Rence]

Possibly going off on a tangent, but one I believe is related. If the woman is granted a* right* to an abortion, then the nurse should have argued her rights to a relgion, religious beliefs, and freedom to religious expression. Arguing over the morals of abortion seems a null point, since it is permissable under the law. The rights of the child don’t matter, under the law, but, as I understand it, the right to religious freedom is. Would arguing the case for not assisting in an abortion under freedom of religion not be a good way to go? Any legal minds out there have any thoughts? Or has this already been tried?

Yes, of course, arguing the case for not assisting in abortion under freedom of religion is the way to go. And in my experience, it is attempted to be accomodated in all cases I know of. The problems is, if there is no one else to cover the patient, the hospital doesn’t have a choice but to make you work your shift. The patient has to be covered.

Unfortunately, law against murder, rape, stealing, contraception ARE binding to every human being who ever walked the face of the earth. And some people refuse to believe that abortion ( as well as contraception) is LEGAL and NOT murder - according to the law. So going up against your boss about how immoral it is, is a moot point. The procedure in question was a legal procedure, in addition to the fact that it was judged to be an emergency, which is at the descretion of the health care provider alone.

Going to your boss about freedom of religion and the right to exercise that freedom is the best way to go. But as I said before, you’re SOL if that patient can’t be covered. It goes hand in hand with separation of church and state. If someone dies because you refuse to perform your function, and you were in charge of that patient, and you couldn’t find a replacement for whatever reason, you are responsible and liable.

Again, as I said in my first post: I agree that abortion is wrong, and it’s not an option I would choose. However, I am still subject to the law. And still have a legal (as well as moral) obligation to do my job.

 

[Rence]

There was no mention of a tubal pregnancy. The news story said the woman was 22 weeks pregnant, which is very advanced. It couldn’t have been ectopic, the tube would have ruptured long before 22 weeks.

You’re right. I used that as an example. My point was, we don’t know what was involved in that case. If the physician deemed it a medical emergency, he would have to back it up when questioned by the legal department as well as quality control. Emergency surgeries are expensive. If procedures are done inappropriately, they may not even be covered by insurance companies. I’m just saying there’s a lot more to the story than what the article says and I am reserving judgement until the case is resolved.