What that hospital did was nothing less than torture. We wouldn't mistreat a dog the way they made that poor woman suffer. And for what? That imposed their religious convictions on her like it was some medieval Inquisition.

The only way to stop the persecution of women is to hit these misogynistic organizations where it really hurts, take away the money! No more government funds, no grants, no tax breaks, no Medicare patients, no Medicaid patients, no federal reimbursement for the indigent or first responder services. Cut off the money train.

If they aren't a full service hospital that's fine, they can specialize like many facilities do, and treat men only. Many smaller hospitals don't offer obstetrical services, but in an emergency pregnant woman still go to the closest ER. While that hospital might not be equipped to treat them, they still make every effort to get them medically stable so they can be quickly transferred by ambulance to the appropriate hospital.

The apologists hate all criticism of their beloved RCC and its dictates. No matter the cost, apparently.

It's disgusting.

that Catholic hospitals routinely harm women due to doctrine?

The former should surprise no one. As to the latter, no, I do not buy that Catholic hospitals routinely harm women due to doctrine.

I repeat, if that were true, they would not now be accredited.

Faith Groesbeck mentions five.

The article then states: "We assume there are other complaints that we don’t know about yet."

Catholic hospitals admit 5,000,000 patients a year, Presumably half are women.

No I don't buy cleanhippie's fervent belief that Catholic hospitals routinely harm women.

is due to one of the patients fighting back in a lawsuit. We don't know how consistent the federal government is in enforcing its own rules on hospitals, nor how many complaints actually exist, hence the FOIA lawsuit.

Its not like this is a new phenomenon, nor something we shouldn't be concerned about:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636458/

Not to mention that most of these hospital systems signed on to the USCCB's Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. Of particular interest is part 4, around Directive 45 and below, which are the ones that concerns Pregnancy and Abortion the most:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]45. Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or
the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose
sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its
moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo.
Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the
principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be
concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers

Now this directive defines abortion, but it does it in two ways, as either destruction of the fetus or termination of the pregnancy through removal of the fetus before viability. This is a huge problem, forget double-effect, it threw that out the window. Even more disturbing is the second half, which seems to be a directive to dissuade or discourage women from seeking therapeutic abortions from outside providers.

Then they decide to contradict themselves here:

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]47. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a
proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they
cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of
the unborn child.

This directly contradicts directive 45, and directive 48 as well:

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]48. In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.31

Part of the problem is what constitutes a "direct abortion" or not, its undefined, I guess its supposed to be left up to the medical practitioners as to what constitutes a "direct abortion". But considering that, in the case of extrauterine(ectopic) pregnancy, the removal of the fetus IS the way to prevent injury or death of a woman, apparently, even so called "double effect" doesn't apply, I guess they should just die or something. Apparently they can't even refer patients to hospitals that will treat their life threatening condition. Seems to me that, given this confusion, that this is a situation ripe for abuse and neglect.

The document is also silent on fetuses that are no longer viable or even biologically alive. Abortion is, according to the document, the termination of the pregnancy OR fetus. So the hospitals are in quite a bind if the fetus isn't viable, but the pregnancy is ongoing. I guess they should just wait for sepsis to set in or something, to make things "proportional".

Honestly, these sections that I read are appalling, hospitals should be, first and foremost, concerned about the well being of patients, all other considerations should be secondary, if they should be considered at all.

isn't it?

Don't be afraid to express yourself.

Those directives have been in place for some time. As has the hospitals' accreditation.

confusion that can, and has, delayed care.

if the confusion and negligence is widespread, then it should be examined closely, in addition, just having one case is one too many, these hospitals need to be regulated on standards of care where found to be negligent, even if its in violation of the USCCB directives, which have no place in a medical setting.

needs to be brought to light, and hopefully they can be regulated so that incidents of neglect don't occur again.

It's inaccurate, misleading and posted primarily to advance an agenda.

And that agenda here is not to promote women's rights.

The OP's history is to routinely post anti-religious posts in general, anti-Catholic posts in particular, because, plainly, he detests religion and, more coyly, religious people who challenge him. It's trolling.

The destructive part of it is that it prevents any rational discussion of the impact of religion on health care. The goal is not to critique, understand or protect but simply to spread a prejudice that existed before Catholic hospitals and would continue if every Catholic hospital closed.

It's rank dishonesty. If you think my assessment is harsh, just read his next five OPs.

being bought out or merged with Catholic health systems, this is a cause for concern, particularly if they follow the directives of the USCCB, as atrocious as those are. The effects have already being felt, the question is whether its widespread or not. Its not prejudice when its admitted outright that certain medical conditions/situations will not be dealt with in a responsible manner due to interference by religious authorities.

Frankly speaking, all Hospitals with any type of emergency services should be able to perform therapeutic abortions as needed without restrictions brought on by religious edicts or directives. Patient needs should be paramount, period.

Or anyone else that dares to keep shining the light on the RCC. His agenda? Deflect and defend at any cost.

Feed that last word compulsion. Im done with you.

Last edited Thu May 26, 2016, 08:31 AM - Edit history (1)

I see two.

I detect large amounts of Cathosplaining in this sector.

Just deflection, snark, and defense of the indefensible. The Catholic apologists on this board (the ones who haven't slunk away in intellectual shame) have little else any more. But their indoctrination requires it of them.