Friday, June 07, 2013

Catholic organizations absorbing secular hospitals in order to impose religious restrictions on medical treatment. As if I needed another reason to dislike organized religions.

Courtesy of Alternet:

 Across the U.S., religious healthcare corporations are absorbing once secular and independent hospitals and in the process imposing religious restrictions that pit standard medical practice against theology. 

Recently, a woman was traveling across the Midwest when she developed abdominal pain. She and her husband went to the nearest hospital, where she was diagnosed with a potentially fatal ectopic pregnancy. The doctors recommended immediate surgery to remove the fallopian tube containing the misplaced embryo, a procedure that would reduce by half her future chances of conceiving a child. They failed to mention that a simple injection of Methotrexate would solve the problem, leaving her fertility intact. Why the omission? The Catholic hospital where she got diagnosed was subject to the “ Ethical and Religious Directives” of the Catholic bishops, which state, “In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.” 

According to Catholic moralists, an injection that destroys an ectopic embryo is a direct abortion, while removing the part of a woman’s reproductive system containing the embryo is not. While this may sound strange (or abhorrent) to outsiders, it has its own internal logic. Catholic ethics ultimately are determined by theologically based perceptions of what actions God approves and doesn’t approve. While compassion does matter, the end goal is to improve the spiritual standing or righteousness of the person performing the action. These theological dictates may or may not align with the questions that govern secular medical ethics and practice: how to minimize harm and suffering or maximize wellbeing while respecting patient autonomy. 

The recent case of a young Salvadoran mother named Beatriz offered a graphic example of how religious interference in medical care can force doctors to commit malpractice. Beatriz, who suffers from lupus, was pregnant with a nonviable anencephalic fetus yet was refused an abortion clear through the second trimester, as her condition became increasingly risky. Salvadoran minister of health, Maria Isabel Rodriguez, called her situation a “grave maternal illness with a high probability of deterioration or maternal death.” 

“I just want to live,” Beatriz told the press—echoing the sentiments of Savita Halappanavar who died last year after being denied an abortion in Catholic Ireland. Salvadoran doctors were willing to perform the needed abortion, but their hands were tied by laws based in Catholic theology. Finally, at 26 weeks gestation and under international pressure, a Salvadoran court ruled that Beatriz could end the pregnancy— via caesarean section. As in the case of the ectopic pregnancy, Beatriz was offered an invasive surgical procedure rather than the standard treatment which would minimize recovery time and leave her body intact. As best can be determined from news reports, the only reason the doctors had to cut her open was to satisfy the Catholic pretense that this was an attempt to deliver a viable baby. 

 In the wake of Halappanavar’s death and Beatriz’s dangerously substandard care, Marge Berer, founder of the international journal, Reproductive Health Matters, questioned the ability of Catholic-controlled facilities to provide emergency obstetric services and asked whether they should be formally stripped of their right to provide maternity care more broadly. Unfortunately, with Catholic corporations gobbling up independent care facilities, a woman may have few other options. If all currently proposed mergers are completed in Washington State, for example, nine counties will have all hospital beds controlled by religious institutions by the end of 2013.

So if the Church cannot get people to follow their directions by preaching it to them in the pulpit, they will just force their beliefs on them by controlling their access to medical treatment, which will now favor the almighty fetus above all others. 

And ladies the Catholic church would especially like to thank you for your generosity with tithing as they can now use that money to more effectively control your bodies and turn you into breeding stock.

Is it any wonder that women are leaving the church in droves?

31 comments:

  1. Anonymous4:04 AM

    That's happening all over the world, not just in the US. I was warned by my local (RW, pro-choice) politician in 2010 that that's what the Catholic church is doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7:02 AM

      I live across from a "Catholic cemetery" and a month or two ago they were picketing, So one day while walking my dog I went to talk with them....
      they told me the "Company" wanted to restrict health ins that offered Birth control!
      The man I spoke with was a older gentleman and he said "we have guys here whose wives have a couple of kids and, you know don't really want anymore, and they want to use Birth control..." So these
      Bastard Catholics are trying to impose THEIR rules anyway they can even through Health ins as well as hospitals that will not do abortions or offer Birth control.
      I.Really.hate.the. catholic.church!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous2:30 AM

      pro life, you mean, @4:04?

      Delete
  2. Anonymous4:04 AM

    My hubby works at a Catholic hospital and they seem to let the doctors do what they want. I don't know about gynecological stuff though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Leland4:46 AM

    They may be leaving the church in droves, but the church is chasing after them!

    My personal wishes (a notarized copy of which I carry in my wallet) specifically stipulate that under NO circumstances am I to be taken to ANY medical facility which has ANY affiliation with any sort of religious organization - under threat of suit. Further, my entire family is aware of that. And even further still, my power of attorney is the hands of someone in whom I have absolute trust who WILL follow through with my desires.

    If that means I can't be taken to any hospital or emergency facility, then I die. And that, too, is specified.

    I am wondering how long it will be before someone steps in and legally challenges all these acquisitions taking into consideration the medical malpractice (essentially) aspects of their "guidelines".

    ReplyDelete
  4. BabyRaptor4:59 AM

    "While compassion does matter, the end goal is to improve the spiritual standing or righteousness of the person performing the action."

    That says everything that needs to be said, in my opinion.

    Every citizen of this country has freedom of religion, no matter what they believe. They have the right to personally believe anything they wish, and to adhere to those beliefs in their own life.

    They do NOT have the right to subject others to anything that the person being subjected does not want.

    And this is the main problem with religion. Too many people who either can't or won't respect others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leland5:33 AM

      They did for a while under W!

      In fact, I changed doctors when he began refusing me treatment for a certain medical problem, choosing instead to send me to a specialist - which cost me triple what my doctor would normally have charged.

      I ask this: What is the difference between actually performing a procedure themselves and sending the patient to another person to have the procedure done?

      Enabling the procedure is exactly the same as doing it! It gets done, so the moral choice of having to do it themselves is identical.

      I have had doctors say to me, "We are people, too. We should have the same rights." My answer is always the same: "Then you need to decide if you are going to be a doctor and follow your Hippocratic oath or your oath to your religion. DON'T force ME into your beliefs. Shit or get off the pot!"

      Delete
  5. Anonymous5:31 AM

    Medical decisions made by non-medical people are a crime against humanity. The religious decision to impose a vicious medical solution for a life threatening medical situation is INSANE!

    "With rare exceptions, ectopic pregnancies are not viable. " (wiki)

    Ending an ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion. The embryo is NOT a person. It is a small ball of cells that threaten the life of the woman. (And, per a friend of mine, hurts like hell.)

    What hypocrisy!!!! To say that removing a Fallopian tube (with an embryo in it) is acceptable to some improbable god but removing just the embryo is not.

    Never give a penny to any Catholic-related organization no matter how lofty their propaganda sounds. The Catholic church needs to be dismantled so they can not impose the horror of their insane rules on any woman, catholic or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:50 AM

      Think about it: if a thoroughbred race-winning mare were pregnant with an ectopic fetus, no veterinarian would even give it a second thought: they would place the horse's life first, forget about the fetal 'rights', and remove the growth. The same would be true for a show-placing pregnant dog. Why shouldn't female humans be given the same rights as horses and dogs??????

      Delete
  6. Anonymous5:34 AM

    We need government legislation to prevent religious monopolies of medical care. The competition of free market terrifies the Catholic church.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous5:54 AM

    Some 80% of the counties in WA state are 100% controlled by the religious hospitals, i.e. you have NO HEALTHCARE CHOICE in those counties but to go to a catholic hospital...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous6:03 AM

    Gryphen, obviously this is a reprehensible situation which needs to be addressed. Sad to say, religious beliefs may merely be a small part of this particular problem.

    I was a lay breastfeeding counselor for 9 years in the 1990s, and counseled about a thousand families about childbirth, breastfeeding, and parenting issues during that time. I heard hundreds of stories about women who underwent unnecessary interventions during childbirth when lower-tech, safer procedures were available. These interventions often resulted in life-threatening complications for both mother and baby---and then the mother would be told "thank goodness we were here to save you!" These procedures all too often led to postpartum complications for the mother or drugged babies who couldn't nurse, which in turn would lead to all manner of short-term and long-term health issues.

    The scary thing is that we could usually predict in advance what sort of childbirth experience a woman would have, based solely on the health care provider and hospital that she chose. Certain hospitals and certain doctors were notorious for prescribing the exact same interventions and protocols for all their patients, regardless of actual need. And these were all 100% secular doctors and hospitals, in case you were wondering.

    So yes, do call attention to the abuses of the Catholic hospitals in this matter. But the problems of American obstetrics go far deeper than faith issues alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leland6:39 AM

      Unfortunately, with the Repubes in Congress holding the positions they do, there will NOT be any addressing of the problem we see.

      They don't SEE it as a problem. They see it as a religious GOOD thing!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9:20 AM

      It isn't only hospitals, it is also insurance companies. Try having a homebirth with a CNM back in the '90's. Even though ti was much cheaper.

      Delete
    3. It's why we do NOT have the best healthcare in the world.

      Not even close.

      I think even Cuba ranks better than we do.

      Delete
  9. Anonymous6:24 AM

    I made up my mind a long time ago never give to any religious group, no corporation that asks the public to give donations. For example, every time you go to the store, they might ask for your change. They ask for your money, but they take a corporate tax exemption. . I'm sick of all this tax exemption, and makes the corporations, religious groups rich, and its their own agendas, hell with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leland6:42 AM

      Do what I do. Every time I see ANY religious group involved in politics, I file a formal complaint. It MAY not do any good, but if nobody files them it DEFINITELY won't do any good!

      Delete
  10. WakeUpAmerica6:30 AM

    While I totally agree with the sentiments of the author, I think he/she may have confused methotrexate with some other drug. It is anything but a "simple injection."

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a682019.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it simpler than major surgery?

      Delete
  11. Anonymous6:39 AM

    This must be new since I left Catholicism a few decades ago. I don't recall there was ever any problem with ending an ectopic pregnancy because they are all doomed to failure anyhow, since the egg is trying to develop OUTSIDE the womb! It was an emergency surgical procedure and had nothing to do with abortion. Ending a pregnancy, yes, but one that had no chance of completing.

    And it's sad, because Catholic hospitals used to be among the best in the nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leland8:03 AM

      Fear,6:39. Fear.

      They recognize that they are losing control of their parishioners so they seek to control EVERYONE.

      The catholic church has always been a power grabber and the single most dangerous long-lived organization in the world. They are responsible for millions of deaths, some of them of their OWN PEOPLE!

      It is no surprise to me they are pulling this crap. They feel they can simply do anything they wish due to separation of church and state.

      I have news for them. There is NOT a solid barrier to the state controlling THEM! It will happen sooner or later. It's just a question of will it come in time.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9:24 AM

      Back then, surgery was the only way to "fix" an ectopic and save the woman. It necessarily destroyed her fertility. TOday with methotrexate, both can be done, but since the methotrexate necessarily removes the fetus it is seen as abortion. Twisted logic by the RCC since the days of Aquinas and Anselm

      When religion ruled the world, they called it the "Dark Ages" - apropos!

      Delete
    3. Leland5:30 PM

      "When religion ruled the world...."

      Sorry, but it still does! It may not be directly apparent, but it is insidious and ever-present. Not only that, but in some locations it is definitely growing - sometimes violently.

      Delete
  12. They better be prepared for a LOT of lawsuits.

    If you have to go to one of these hospitals and you are NOT Catholic, they have no right to impose their doctrine on you. And if that results in substandard care, such as the removal of your reproductive organs when an alternative was available, then they should be SUED.

    Let them defend this in court. They'll LOSE. And they'll PAY.

    And pay and pay and pay.

    I'd make it illegal for religions to own hospitals and then impose their doctrine on patients. ILLEGAL.

    BTW this is just another way to subjugate women, punish them for being daughters of EVE, relegate them to third class, third world status as property rather than having the freedom to choose.

    Notice NONE of this effects men's health whatsoever. It's only the WOMEN!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anita Winecooler5:41 PM

      Well Stated! Can't agree more, especially with your last sentence.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous2:18 PM

    A trio of Iowa-based religious scholars penned an op-ed in a local paper this week, reminding readers that despite popular opinion, the Bible does not simply define marriage as between one man and one woman.

    The joint editorial was written by Hector Avalos, Robert R. Cargill and Kenneth Atkinson and published in the Des Moines Register on Sunday. The men teach at Iowa State University, University of Iowa and University of Northern Iowa, respectively.

    "The debate about marriage equality often centers, however discretely, on an appeal to the Bible," the authors wrote. "Unfortunately, such appeals often reflect a lack of biblical literacy on the part of those who use that complex collection of texts as an authority to enact modern social policy."

    The Bible's definition of marriage can be confusing and contradictory, noted the scholars. They stated in their column that a primary example of this is the religious book's stance on polygamy, a practice that was embraced by prominent biblical figures Abraham and David. Furthermore, Avalos, Cargill and Atkinson point out that various Bible passages mention not only traditional monogamy, but also self-induced castration and celibacy, as well as the practice of wedding rape victims to their rapists.

    In an interview with The Huffington Post, Iowa University Professor Robert R. Cargill said the column was the brainchild of his colleague Hector Avalos, who suggested local scholars put together an "educated response" to the often-touted claim that the Bible defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman. "[T]hat's not the only thing the Bible says," Cargill told HuffPost.

    He explained that it is obvious to scholars (and some religious leaders) that the Bible endorses a wide range of relationships. But he noted, however, that professors are "terrified" of the potential backlash that might result from opening a dialogue about these relationships. Cargill also noted that the initial response to the Register column has included its fair share of vitriol.

    Ultimately, said Cargill, a Biblical "argument against same-sex marriage is wholly unsustainable. We all know this, but very few scholars are talking about it, because they don't want to take the heat."

    He suggested that academics who continue to be cowed by a strident opposition do a disservice to their communities.

    "Most people aren't dumb, they want to make an informed decision" on religiously charged questions, Cargill said. "If scholars aren't talking to them, they have to rely on talk show hosts and pundits, and that's not the most reliable source of information."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/biblical-marriage-iowa-scholars-op-ed_n_3397304.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leland5:39 PM

      I would seriously recommend those three begin wearing bullet proof vests!

      ONE (or more) of the ignorant, religious assholes will try something stupid! The fools did it with doctors performing abortions and claimed it wasn't murder to kill them.

      Violence seems to be an attractant to these shits! So much for the christian reputation for love and mercy.

      Given a choice between education and ignorance, they will choose ignorance, claiming they ALREADY know their bible! They even show their stupidity with THAT statement!

      Delete
  14. Anita Winecooler5:38 PM

    Are “ Ethical and Religious Directives” of the Catholic bishops" the same folks who handle Ethics and Religious Directives of those pesky recurring Clergy Sex Abuse cases we've seen the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church royally screw up?

    We have a lot of Catholic Hospitals in our area, as well as some fine secular ones. I have a serious problem with this because in emergencies, the patient doesn't always have a say in which hospital 911 takes them to.
    I can imagine a lot of these religious hospitals pop up in poor areas where people are easier to take advantage of due to circumstances. A lot of people don't question religion and are prone to not seek second opinions because they're raised to believe Doctors are "God" and what they say goes.

    What's "moral" or "ethical" by omitting information that could effect women's rights, fertility and informed consent?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that is the problem. Imposing their religious doctrine on what are basically helpless victims. They can't ask the patients if they are Catholic. The patients have no choice where they are taken to.

      So as I said above, these are ripe lawsuits just waiting to happen. If the Catholic church was crying over all the money the sex scandals were costing them, just wait until these hospital lawsuits start lining up.

      Delete
  15. She's one smart cookie. She'll get a lawyer, win and get a lot of free publicity.

    How can you be cited for PUBLIC nudity and also be cited for trespassing on PRIVATE property?

    This will be fun.

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.