Hospitals Deny Care in US Due to Religious Sponsorship

[cybercoma]

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.

This is all well and fine, but the point of the ACLU article in the OP is that hospitals which offer emergency care to the public at large are providing a substandard level of service and putting people in danger due to their religious sponsorships. You're defending that practice by saying people should just go to a different hospital, which isn't always a luxury people have in emergency situations. This nonsense about "planned parenthood" in Catholic hospitals was a red-herring brought up by bush_cheney2004 and frankly I'm surprised to see you repeat it. That's not what this thread is about and that's not what the ACLU article was about, so I've been trying not to dignify this strawman with a response.

Also, I'm completely in agreement with dre's sentiment above about staff and their religious freedoms. I don't think religious freedom is a reasonable limit on people's health, well-being, and survival. Neither do the courts, since parents have been held responsible for denying care to their children for religious beliefs. Doctors and nurses likewise care for the public when these institutions open their doors to everyone. Therefore, like the parents in those cases, they are responsible for the health and well-being of their patients. If the care is inadequate, religious freedom is not an exception, I would think.

Edited December 5, 2013 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

You're defending that practice by saying people should just go to a different hospital, which isn't always a luxury people have in emergency situations.

I'm saying that religious hospitals will offer services that align with the beliefs of the institution and their employees.

Does anybody expect a JW hospital to open and not offer blood work ? It's nonsense.

I don't think religious freedom is a reasonable limit on people's health, well-being, and survival.

Well, people themselves make those "bad" choices... they need to be resolved and the courts can do that.

[cybercoma]

MH, if someone's religious beliefs made them refuse service to a woman because she's not employee's wife, that would not be considered a reasonable limit and the shop would be forced to reconcile their practices with human rights legislation. How then is it ok for a hospital, offering service to the public, to give substandard care to people due to religious convictions of the financiers and employees?

[kimmy]

Michael, you should be thoroughly embarrassed for letting Dick distract you from the real topic here.

The issue is not simply a matter of a doctor or even an institution refusing to provide a medical procedure on moral grounds.

The issue is that the doctor or institution deceived the patient.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

... If the care is inadequate, religious freedom is not an exception, I would think.

That is incorrect thinking, neither supported by the U.S. constitution or federal courts. Opinions about what is right or wrong from individuals without standing are irrelevant. If the health care contributions of religiously sponsored organizations was removed in part or in whole because of such extreme positions, then the net result would be a loss of health care resources for all.

As for the "strawman", if it says "St. Mary's Hospital" on the outside, don't expect to get an abortion on the inside.

[cybercoma]

As for the "strawman", if it says "St. Mary's Hospital" on the outside, don't expect to get an abortion on the inside.

Once again, read the article. The patient didn't go to the hospital expecting to get an abortion. I've already mentioned this to you, so read the article and stop trolling.

[cybercoma]

The issue is that the doctor or institution deceived the patient.

-k

But that's ok because it's their protected religious right to deceive patients and provide substandard care when they are the closest hospital within 90 miles.

[bush_cheney2004]

Once again, read the article. The patient didn't go to the hospital expecting to get an abortion. I've already mentioned this to you, so read the article and stop trolling.

Whining about contrary opinions is not relevant. That the patient could not or should not have received health care information and or services that were contrary to the hospitals religious charter are relevant. Asking for member responses about the OP and then whining about it is trolling.

Edited December 5, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

But that's ok because it's their protected religious right to deceive patients and provide substandard care when they are the closest hospital within 90 miles.

It is OK....the U.S. takes that sort of thing very seriously. Substandard care is sometimes provided in Canada even without any impact by religious freedom(s).

[dre]

I think its a good idea to standardize care so I support things like the Canada Health Act.

But in the US there is no such thing, and providers are private. So if a provider wants to only offer services to polish amputees with prostrate cancer then so be it. But not one single penny of tax payer money should ever go to them. If you want to take medicare patients, or you want to get reimbersed for care under the emergency healthcare protection act, you should have comply with a specific set of criteria.

Hell... I dont care if a hospital just wants to do boob jobs, and turns ALL other patients away. Just dont expect any subsidies or tax breaks.

Edited December 5, 2013 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

Too late....Catholic and other non-profit hospitals already get huge tax exemptions by law. And they expect to continue getting them. And they will.

By the by, the CHA does not stop CRA tax exemption for Catholic non-profits and charities, including such hospitals in Canada..

Edited December 5, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

Too late....Catholic and other non-profit hospitals already get huge tax exemptions by law. And they expect to continue getting them. And they will.

By the by, the CHA does not stop CRA tax exemption for Catholic non-profits and charities, including such hospitals in Canada..

All hospitals in Canada are non profit and they will continue to be so if I have to stand at the border with an axe.

[Michael Hardner]

@cyber and @kimmy

I read the article again and something is missing:

"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. This is true even if as in Tamesha's case, compliance with the Directives pose a direct threat to patient health."

There's a missing chain of action here wherein somebody can tell us that these hospitals failed to provide care. Again, as far as I was taught there was no holy edict that requires a health practitioner to jeopardize a mother's life to save the life of the baby. And there is an investigation under way, so let's see where it goes - they will get the missing facts here.

[bush_cheney2004]

All hospitals in Canada are non profit and they will continue to be so if I have to stand at the border with an axe.

Then you must have fallen asleep with your axe....see Cambie Surgery Centre in British Columbia.

[cybercoma]

I think its a good idea to standardize care so I support things like the Canada Health Act.

But in the US there is no such thing, and providers are private. So if a provider wants to only offer services to polish amputees with prostrate cancer then so be it. But not one single penny of tax payer money should ever go to them. If you want to take medicare patients, or you want to get reimbersed for care under the emergency healthcare protection act, you should have comply with a specific set of criteria.

Hell... I dont care if a hospital just wants to do boob jobs, and turns ALL other patients away. Just dont expect any subsidies or tax breaks.

I don't buy into your argument about private facilities. Restaurants are private and there's a standard they have to maintain to remain open, so the customers' health is protected. Why wouldn't hospitals have to meet a standard of care, so their customers' health is protected?

[cybercoma]

All hospitals in Canada are non profit

This isn't actually true.

[Wilber]

Pretty clear that this hospital threw ethics out the window in favour of religious doctrine.

[On Guard for Thee]

This isn't actually true.

Yes I stand corrected, that isn't actually true. There are some for profit medical outlets being allowed to operate, and then there have been a few here in BC that started up and then were forced to shut down under the Canada Health Act, so I don't know exactly where we are currently. And I have a friend who was on a waiting list for surgery which was not life and death issue but had much to do with her comfort. She was able to jump the cue by crossing the border and spending 1800 bucks to "git er done" and she was quite happy and I wouldn't begrudge anyone that. Unfortunately that tends toward a multi tiered system which I don't agree with. There are a few issues were I think the typical "them that has gets" shouldn't be applied. Namely health. education, and welfare. I chatted once with an American woman while we waited for a plane in Seattle. She told me she didn't like the Canadian system of health care because she didn't want to contribute to a policy that benefited anyone else but her. That is of course her right. We think a bit different up here.