The saddest part is that she did not have options. The good part is that she did not die.

by religious belief. God told them what to do, and in their mind, that trumps medical ethics completely.

are WRONG and that your beliefs are RIGHT.

So why are you OK with doing this yet you routinely scold, attack, and marginalize atheists doing the same thing to other religious beliefs?

Oh I know your standard cop-out - that it's OK to criticize beliefs if you think they are harming someone. Now despite the problems with that method (aren't you using your beliefs to decide what harms?), which many people have pointed out to you, the special item to note here is that the RCC believes they are PROTECTING someone - they don't want to do anything that would harm the fetus, which they believe to be a full person. This doesn't fit into the tidy little box you've created. But you won't address this problem - you'll ignore it, and anyone who points it out to you.

But you'll judge their religious beliefs and declare them wrong regardless, while simultaneously bashing anyone who does the same thing. No wonder you struggle to be taken seriously.

Establishing their liability in the context of a medical malpractice case will be difficult.

was medically appropriate.

At any rate, it's going to be very complicated.

Hell, even men should probably avoid them if they can.

I worked at a community hospital for quite a while in a parish where abortions were prohibited in public hospitals. We had arrangements with other hospitals for cases like this and a rapid and effective mechanism for over-riding the rules if the need arose.

This hospital appears to have had none of that.

organization running any medical office or clinic, it should be outright banned if they cannot make sure that their primitive morality won't interfere with the way medical care is practiced.

including the Catholic Church, will always put the dictates of their religion above any civil laws, and even above any agreements or promises they may have made.

What agreements and promises have they broken?

but did you even read the article? And why do you think that religious "conscience" laws are necessary in the first place, if not to protect Catholics and others who would otherwise be required by their religion to defy the civil law?

been blatantly negligent.

But most institutions have protocols that address this. This one either did not or did not follow it.

I don't, however, think you can generalize the actions of this particular hospital to the catholic church in general, as you have done.

I support conscience laws, as long as patients have alternatives available. Part of my position of being pro-choice is exactly that - it is an individual choice. As far as I am concerned that goes for both those that are choosing to obtain a procedure and those who might provide a procedure. There is no civil law that says an individual must provide a service, though I think there is an ethical mandate if the service can not be otherwise obtained. What civil law do you think is being defied by conscience laws?

Because the dictates of someone's religion led them to ignore and defy it, or not to have it in the first place. Which is exactly the point. The Catholic Church's fundamental teaching is that an embryo cannot be aborted, no matter how grave the risk to the pregnant woman's life, and that teaching permeates the entire Catholic medical system, including this hospital. It doesn't much matter that it wasn't the Pope himself giving the orders in this particular case.

As far as conscience laws, I didn't mean to imply that they violate civil laws directly..they don't. But ask yourself: why are conscience laws so necessary in the first place? I'd like to know your answer to that.

No catholic hospitals do.

There are also community hospitals that don't because the communities have decided that they are going to prohibit it.

The federal government also prevents medicare and medicaid from paying for abortions.

I'm sure the argument could be made that religion is at the base of this, but the fact is that the decision to not provide abortions is often made outside of purely religious institutions.

Why didn't they do it? I'm sure that will come out in the trials, but I suspect it was either negligence, ignorance or an excessive adherence to their own rules.

Miscarriages which may involve medical intervention, and where the life of the fetus is no longer an issue, are generally not prohibited in any way in hospitals that prohibit abortions. Personally, I think they exercised poor judgement and made a bad decision…. but I wasn't there.

Conscience laws are necessary if one believes in choice. Choice is about decisions regarding abortion being seen as personal and not something that should be mandated or prohibited by outside authorities. If an OB-GYN believes that abortion is murder, I do not think they should be forced to perform them.

The problem occurs when there is no other option available to a patient. In that case, the patient is being prohibited from exercising their own choice. Practitioners that claim a conscientious objection to performing abortions should not ethically practice in a place where there is no one else available to perform the procedure.

What trouble would someone get into by exercising that choice (often dictated by religion) that they would need a law to protect them from?

Roe v. Wade protects choice. Prior to this people, both patients and medical personnel, got into lots of trouble for exercising their choice.

I'm not at all clear about what you are asking.

You said: Conscience laws are necessary if one believes in choice. Roe v. Wade is not the kind of conscience law we're talking about (it's not a conscience law or any kind of statute at all, in fact).

So I'll repeat? Why are conscience laws necessary, as you declare them to be? What would happen to people exercising their conscience if such laws weren't in place?

If nothing were to happen to people if they were to exercise their conscience, then I can't see any argument for having them.

about whether conscience laws are necessary or not. Perhaps your position is not as well thought out as you imagined. That's what discussion is for.

Have a nice day!

receive their meager medical services only because of catholic hospitals and medical clinics.

Until the government steps up to the plate to adequately care for those people, proposing that religious organizations be eliminated from the medical arena is basically proposing genocide.

It's been that way in this country for a very long time and unlikely to change unless the government makes a serious commitment to taking care of the poor (hint: Medicaid won't do it).

No, people who have different opinions than you are not "proposing genocide." This is far from the first time you've leveled such a ridiculous accusation, and it needs to stop. That is a dishonest and disrespectful tactic that hinders discussion and attacks others.

Knock it off.

it's not always like this picture you're painting where thank GOD for the Catholic Church opening all those hospitals or else those poor poor people would have no health care.

That's being overly dramatic, imo.

Look at the Pacific Northwest. In Washington, Catholic hospital group Providence is buying up hospitals all over the state. These weren't previously Catholic hospitals, but now they are.

The partnerships that these hospitals have with other providers now puts all kinds of things, from gay marriage (legal in WA), death with dignity (legal in WA), abortion (legal in WA) up in the air---will they be covered? Can the hospital deny these services despite them being state law? Would the hospital be prevented from discussing death with dignity with a patient despite it being state law?

Catholic hospital groups are buying up shittons of hospitals around the country. They are BUYING OUT non-catholic hospitals. So rather than "telling that to poorest and most marginalized people in this country who receive their meager medical services only because of catholic hospitals and medical clinics", maybe we should realize that there is a growing number of "poorest and most marginalized people in this country" who were getting awesome access to care with a full appreciation of the differences that people have regarding reproductive health, end of life decisions, and nuances of human sexuality that will now be DENIED those previously awesome services because their previously non-religious Memorial Hospital is now St. Margaret's or whatever.

And just so I'm making the point clear...we're talking about COMMUNITY hospitals...hospitals that were open and accommodating to all, now being catholic-run hospitals, with catholic rules regarding contraception, abortion, end of life decisions.

My husband worked one of the largest hospital groups in WA. Secular, community, open to all. Performed abortions. Welcomed same-sex couples. Frank counceling regarding sex. Free condoms. Participated in end of life care and death with dignity for termially ill patients. Consistently voted best OB/GYN care in the country

A few years ago, it was bought out by the Providence Group. Guess what was first to go? Voluntary Abortions. Now they're talking about limiting tubal ligations after c-sections. There is a big question whether they will allow therapeutic (medically necessary) abortions. There has been no discussion yet on death-with-dignity for terminally ill patients.

SO that world-class care patients in Seattle got for over 100 years? Flushed down the toilet because of some bullshit idea of "sanctity of life"

Right now, as of today, there are TWO secular hospitals in Seattle. Two hospitals out of over 30 in the greater seattle area. TWO SECULAR HOSPITALS OUT OF THIRTY HOSPITALS>

remind me about the poor people and the magnificent care they're getting because of catholic hospitals? Because I am a nurse. My husband is a nurse. We worked in those hospitals in Seattle. Patients are getting WORSE care because of the catholic affiliation of these hospitals, not better.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/12/03/washington-state-catholic-hospital-mergers-take-aim-at-abortion-rights.html

http://www.propublica.org/article/catholic-hospitals-grow-and-with-them-questions-of-care

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/health-care-inc/2013/11/fight-over-catholic-hospitals-in.html?page=all

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/faith-healers/Content?oid=16050396

http://www.seattleweekly.com/home/946917-129/catholic-hospitals-care-hospital-rural-patients

http://www.kplu.org/post/fears-catholic-monopoly-dominate-talk-hospital-mergers

here and there, and yet............... snapping up hospitals.

Something not quite right.

Facts, links, and direct personal experience. Far better than simply jumping on someone and suggesting that they must be a proponent of genocide!

Unfortunately none of that matters, as you, I, and multiple others in this group have been deemed evil and untouchable simply because we have the gall to disagree with someone.

I appreciate what you put together there, though. Very informative. Thank you.

for an Excellent Post! Award.

Prepared to be disappointed, though..

He talks nice all the while his minions are still forcing their dogma upon us.

I always just go to UW Physicians. I didn't know. I didn't pick them for that reason. I had not one damn clue this was even an issue till you raised it. I always went there because I thought I was helping them with their residencies and such. Thought it was part of the school medical program, and found the care was EXCELLENT, so I stayed.

Thank you so much.

I worked for UW at HMC downtown. My husband worked at another hospital group up the hill that was bought by Providence. Providence must be Latin for 'cluster fuck'

Swedish? I can't tell by just looking at either. (Overlake has a Seattle office)

I don't know about overlake.

That's really a new low for you, cbayer. Does your obsession with giving religion credit for every bit of good that's ever been done actually require you to say shit like that?

Genocide is the calculated and deliberate slaughter of hundreds of thousands or millions of people because of their race, ethnicity or national origin. Genocide is what the Nazis did to the Jews. Genocide is what the Turks did to the Armenians. Genocide is pure evil. Not sure why you'd say that someone disagreeing with you about how Catholic hospitals deliver medical services equates to advocating mass murder.

I've seen already that this room can be pretty harsh, but this seems really over the top.

or having a discussion.

Please, get over it. Taking away services from a marginalized population presents a direct threat to that population.

Glad to see you have found some friends here. Seems like you will fit right in!

But it seems like accusing people here of advocating mass murder is hyperhyperhyperhyperbole. Not to mention that I've done nothing to deserve your hostility. "Get over it"? When I've done nothing but ask civil questions?

Would it be appropriate to accuse the Catholic church of "genocide" because of their attempts to block the use of effective family planning in overpopulated third world countries, where so many people (including children) die of starvation or of diseases like AIDS as a result?

One could probably find 20 or so instances of it having been used on DU in the last 30 minutes or so.

Godwin's law is another example of hyperbole. You may be familiar with it. It is when one likens someone's argument to the Nazis or Hitler, as you did in your post upthread.

What hostility?

It might be appropriate to use the word genocide when making an argument about some of the practices of the Catholic church. It would depend entirely on context, imo.

there's hyperbole, and then there's way over the top…but to each their own.

But do you not agree that what the Nazis did to the Jews is a perfectly legitimate example of what you're accusing people here of proposing? If you consider my example hyperbole, then that pretty much makes my point that calling what people here are saying "proposing genocide" is overstating things far beyond any appropriate rhetorical device.

I am also saying that you making the comparison is a perfect example of Godwin's Law.

accusing people here of advocating something that you thought would cause the death of lots and lots of people? How is that not accusing them of advocating genocide, and how did your use of what you call "hyperbole" make a valid point? If you weren't accusing them of "pure" genocide, as you call it, what kind of genocide were you accusing them of?

If you are offended, then I apologize.

In response to someone saying: there should not be Catholic hospitals, or any other religious organization running any medical office or clinic, it should be outright banned if they cannot make sure that their primitive morality won't interfere with the way medical care is practiced.

You said: proposing that religious organizations be eliminated from the medical arena is basically proposing genocide.

and: Taking away services from a marginalized population presents a direct threat to that population.

So exactly what was it that you were NOT doing?

You have a nice nice night now.

trying to reason with this one. Civilized and rational discussion is not what she's interested in. Being polite and making logical arguments will not, sad to say, win you any points. That she would go from seeming to apologize in one post to basically putting you on ignore in the next post should tell you all you need to know.

Welcome to DU, btw!

I enjoy a good discussion as much as anyone…but I'm thinking Cooking and Baking may be more civilized Lots of hostility here..

Seriously? The weasel Republican-style apology for your ridiculous and uncalled-for smear?

No wonder you struggle to be taken seriously.