Hospitals Deny Care in US Due to Religious Sponsorship

[cybercoma]

The Directives prohibit Catholic-sponsored facilities from providing vital health services and the information patients need to make informed decisions about their health care, and from honoring patients' wishes when they conflict with Catholic directives.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom-womens-rights-religion-belief/pregnant-woman-suffers-you-wont-believe-whos

Should there be a standard of care that all hospitals ought to adhere to regardless of where their funding comes from? In an emergency, do you have the time to make choices about what facility you go to? Or are you just taken to the closest facility and hope that they don't hold convictions that can put you at risk?

The link that I posted above tells the story of a woman that suffered due to inadequate care at a Catholic facility.

Tamesha was never told the truth about her situation—that her fetus had little chance of surviving, that by attempting to continue the pregnancy she risked her own health, and that completing the miscarriage and ending the pregnancy was the safest approach for a woman in her condition.

Do doctors and hospitals have the right to deny care to someone due to their religious convictions? Should this extend to Orthodox Jewish doctors or Muslim doctors that may refuse to even see female patients or touch female patients when they are "unclean"?

[bush_cheney2004]

Patients can and do "suffer" because of actions and decisions made by medical staff regardless of religious affiliations or directives. On balance, Catholic sponsored health care providers and elder care centers provide far more needed care than suffering. Hospitals, doctors, nurses, even pharmacists have constitutionally protected rights too.

[cybercoma]

Patients can and do "suffer" because of actions and decisions made by medical staff regardless of religious affiliations or directives.

Yes they do, but that's not what this thread is about. It's about people having pertinent medical information withheld from them due to the religious stance of the hospital or doctors. It's terrible regardless of why it happens. However, if doctors are putting people at risk because of superstitions about deities, then this is something that needs to be addressed.

On balance, Catholic sponsored health care providers and elder care centers provide far more needed care than suffering.

That's great. So as long as "on the balance" they're in the black, it's all good that they put people's lives at risk when their superstitions interfere with adequate care? Give me a break.

Hospitals, doctors, nurses, even pharmacists have constitutionally protected rights too.

And so I asked, would it be acceptable for Muslim and doctors that are Orthodox Jews to deny care to female patients due to their beliefs? When Rights compete, how are they resolved here? Is the right to religious belief so absolute that you can harm others? Edited December 3, 2013 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

Patients can and do "suffer" because of actions and decisions made by medical staff regardless of religious affiliations or directives. On balance, Catholic sponsored health care providers and elder care centers provide far more needed care than suffering. Hospitals, doctors, nurses, even pharmacists have constitutionally protected rights too.

Simply doing more good than harm is not enough. A medical facility should be expected to provide as much good as possible, and as little harm as possible, given the available funding, staff, scientific/medical knowledge, etc.

Personally, I think religion and medicine should not mix.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... However, if doctors are putting people at risk because of superstitions about deities, then this is something that needs to be addressed.

..... it's all good that they put people's lives at risk when their superstitions interfere with adequate care? Give me a break.

If that's your concern, take it up with the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court. Yesterday in Canada, the state financed and controlled CBC reported that a majority of doctors would not support or participate in legal euthanasia. Must be their "superstitions".

As for "deities", the decisions made by health care professionals are far more influenced by science and medical technology, even in facilities sponsored by religious organizations. If the sign outside says "St. Mary's", don't expect to get an abortion on demand. Drive to Planned Parenthood instead.

[bush_cheney2004]

Simply doing more good than harm is not enough. A medical facility should be expected to provide as much good as possible, and as little harm as possible, given the available funding, staff, scientific/medical knowledge, etc.

Personally, I think religion and medicine should not mix.

No can do in the U.S., as providers have constitutional rights. People are denied timely and/or competent medical care in Canada (and the U.S.) as a matter of policy without any "deities" involved.

[cybercoma]

If that's your concern, take it up with the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court.

Why? I want to discuss it on a politics forum with others that are interested in 'Religion & Politics' as per the title of this section.

Yesterday in Canada, the state financed and controlled CBC reported that a majority of doctors would not support or participate in legal euthanasia. Must be their "superstitions".

Completely off topic and irrelevant.

If the sign outside says "St. Mary's", don't expect to get an abortion on demand. Drive to Planned Parenthood instead.

Perhaps you should actually read the ACLU article that I posted. This isn't about "abortion on demand". It's about patients being denied potentially life-saving information and care in emergency situations because some hospitals are funded by the Church. In an emergency, I'm sure you don't pull up a chair and search around on Google for "another hospital 90 miles away" (from the link above) for care. You go to the closest one.

If you're not interested in actually reading the OP and discussing the topic, then find another one to post in. Your incessant trolling and attempts to derail threads is a tired gimmick.

[Shady]

No can do in the U.S., as providers have constitutional rights. People are denied timely and/or competent medical care in Canada (and the U.S.) as a matter of policy without any "deities" involved.

Sounds like blatant discrimination and violations of people's constitutional rights.

[Michael Hardner]

Completely off topic and irrelevant.

Why is it ? Isn't the principle at work here that health practitioners have the right to refuse orders based on their personal values, no matter how irrational they may be ?

[bush_cheney2004]

....If you're not interested in actually reading the OP and discussing the topic, then find another one to post in. Your incessant trolling and attempts to derail threads is a tired gimmick.

My responses are on point with this topic. If the broader concepts are too difficult for you to grasp, then please ignore my posts. I have answered your OP question in the negative given existing constitutional rights in the U.S. If all you wanted to do was slag religion in general, just say so.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sounds like blatant discrimination and violations of people's constitutional rights.

Agreed....people can get timely and relevant medical information from their providers only within the framework that facilitates such care, including education, ethics, religious belief systems, legal responsibilities, etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why is it ? Isn't the principle at work here that health practitioners have the right to refuse orders based on their personal values, no matter how irrational they may be ?

Thank you.....I thought the point was obvious enough to not require further elaboration. My bad....

[Bonam]

Why is it ? Isn't the principle at work here that health practitioners have the right to refuse orders based on their personal values, no matter how irrational they may be ?

That may be the principle at work, but it is a flawed principle, and should be challenged. Would we be ok with a hospital run by Jehovah's witnesses that refuses to use blood transfusion and thus people who get ambulanced to that hospital keep on dieing from blood loss that could have been easily prevented/addressed?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Would we be ok with a hospital run by Jehovah's witnesses that refuses to use blood transfusion and thus people who get ambulanced to that hospital keep on dieing from blood loss that could have been easily prevented/addressed?

Yes...quite "OK" in the broader context and instances of medical resource shortages regardless of cause or policies. "Easily prevented" is a relative term that would quickly exhaust medical resources and funding if all facilities and medical personnel were held to such a standard for all circumstances, and in some cases would run afoul of individual rights to refuse blood tranfusions in the first place.

[On Guard for Thee]

If that's your concern, take it up with the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court. Yesterday in Canada, the state financed and controlled CBC reported that a majority of doctors would not support or participate in legal euthanasia. Must be their "superstitions".

As for "deities", the decisions made by health care professionals are far more influenced by science and medical technology, even in facilities sponsored by religious organizations. If the sign outside says "St. Mary's", don't expect to get an abortion on demand. Drive to Planned Parenthood instead.

You obviously dont quite get how the CBC works because if the state did in fact control it they probably would stop the current reportage, along with numerous freedom of information applications which of late has dug up considerable dirt on the latest federal government scandal. As for health care in the US, I am not all that aware of how religion affects it, but I have some insight as to how the worship of money does. It is not so long ago that laws in at least some states made it illegal for a medevac helicopter to overfly an adequate care facility in order to get back to the one which owns the aircraft so it can begin charging the victims health insurance. Socialized health care in Canada makes the need for such laws unnecessary. Also, to date, in Canada there is no such thing as legal euthanasia, nor is there legal assisted suicide, so I dont reckon its a huge revelation that doctors wont participate in either.

[Michael Hardner]

That may be the principle at work, but it is a flawed principle, and should be challenged.

I guess if you just would rather them shut down... in order to prove a point.

The point is that reasonable accommodation works quite well in most cases.

Would we be ok with a hospital run by Jehovah's witnesses that refuses to use blood transfusion and thus people who get ambulanced to that hospital keep on dieing from blood loss that could have been easily prevented/addressed?f

That sounds like a great example of a non-example. But oddly enough:

As of 2003, about 200 hospitals worldwide provide bloodless medical programs.[/size]^%5B29%5D As of 2006, there are 1,535 Hospital Liaison Committees worldwide coordinating communication between 110,000 physicians.[/size]^{%5B41%5D%5B42%5D}

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions#Hospital_Liaison_Committees}

Seems pretty reasonable, unless you're just trying to force your beliefs on people that is.

[bush_cheney2004]

You obviously dont quite get how the CBC works because if the state did in fact control it they probably would stop the current reportage, along with numerous freedom of information applications which of late has dug up considerable dirt on the latest federal government scandal.

Off topic, but part of a broader skirmish that you are unaware of.

As for health care in the US, I am not all that aware of how religion affects it, but I have some insight as to how the worship of money does. It is not so long ago that laws in at least some states made it illegal for a medevac helicopter to overfly an adequate care facility in order to get back to the one which owns the aircraft so it can begin charging the victims health insurance.

Relevant in the broader context, but not because of religion. Unless worshiping money is a religion.

Socialized health care in Canada makes the need for such laws unnecessary. Also, to date, in Canada there is no such thing as legal euthanasia, nor is there legal assisted suicide, so I dont reckon its a huge revelation that doctors wont participate in either.

Fair point, but the larger issue remains with respect to the rights of health care providers. Canada's "socialized medicine" has some structural barriers to timely care that are far scarier than some religious hospitals exercising their constitutional rights.

[On Guard for Thee]

Off topic, but part of a broader skirmish that you are unaware of.

Relevant in the broader context, but not because of religion. Unless worshiping money is a religion.

Fair point, but the larger issue remains with respect to the rights of health care providers. Canada's "socialized medicine" has some structural barriers to timely care that are far scarier than some religious hospitals exercising their constitutional rights.

Not getting blood if I need it because of religious hangups or overflying a hospital which is brand x to get to brand y is about as scary as it gets.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not getting blood if I need it because of religious hangups or overflying a hospital which is brand x to get to brand y is about as scary as it gets.

You can go without blood for a lot of reasons unrelated to overflights or religion. In the case of this OP, the patient returned to the same provider/hospital when others were available. Health care is not a protected right (not even in Canada), but religion is.

[cybercoma]

I guess if you just would rather them shut down... in order to prove a point.

The point is that reasonable accommodation works quite well in most cases.

That sounds like a great example of a non-example. But oddly enough:

Seems pretty reasonable, unless you're just trying to force your beliefs on people that is.

Advocating for the Devil here has you arguing that you're ok with hospitals letting people suffer and die, as long as someone's religious sensibilities aren't hurt.

Does that sound reasonable to you? Do you think it would be reasonable to the average person?

[On Guard for Thee]

You can go without blood for a lot of reasons unrelated to overflights or religion. In the case of this OP, the patient returned to the same provider/hospital when others were available. Health care is not a protected right (not even in Canada), but religion is.

Overflights and religion are luckily ones we dont have to deal with in Canada. I think if a doctor in Canada refused to transfuse because of religion he would at least have his license revoked and could well face criminal charges.

[bush_cheney2004]

Overflights and religion are luckily ones we dont have to deal with in Canada. I think if a doctor in Canada refused to transfuse because of religion he would at least have his license revoked and could well face criminal charges.

Could be right about that, but I do know that many doctors refuse to perform abortions in Canada to the point that some provinces send patients to the U.S. for "reproductive services".

[Michael Hardner]

Advocating for the Devil here has you arguing that you're ok with hospitals letting people suffer and die, as long as someone's religious sensibilities aren't hurt.

Not at all. I don't think it makes sense for there to be an Emergency reception in a hospital that doesn't allow surgery, nor a planned parenthood desk at a Catholic hospital.

The thing is: we navigate these problems quite well for the most part, and there's no reason to think we can't continue to do so. The Catholic church does not force the mother's health to be put at risk for the baby, from what I understand.

I'm fine with a court challenge on specific practices; let's see how it comes out.

Also - hospitals do accommodate patients who do not want to be treated by someone of a different religion in some cases, to call back to a similar question you asked above. Freedom of religion is still something that individuals need to be given, whether in their workplace or when seeking healthcare.

[dre]

Freedom of religion is still something that individuals need to be given, whether in their workplace or when seeking healthcare

I dont see any logic reason why religious consciencious objection should be give more legal weight than other types of consciencious objection. Everyone has the right to practice their beliefs, and everyone has the right to not apply for the job where the work description is at odds with your values.

I dont see why anything more is required. And giving religious beliefs more legal weight than other moral beliefs blatantly discriminates against non religious people, or religions too small to be officially recognized.

[Bonam]

I dont see any logic reason why religious consciencious objection should be give more legal weight than other types of consciencious objection. Everyone has the right to practice their beliefs, and everyone has the right to not apply for the job where the work description is at odds with your values.

I dont see why anything more is required. And giving religious beliefs more legal weight than other moral beliefs blatantly discriminates against non religious people, or religions too small to be officially recognized.

Couldn't agree more.