• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Catholic hospital 'risked woman's life by forcing her to deliver 18-week fetus[W:465]

I think you need to reread the last few posts.

so the answer is "no" you didnt have a point to the conversation you involved yourslef in you just supplied random info, thanks
 
I checked a little and it seems that some of her other hospital choice are run by the same folks using the same guidelines.

A hospital should provide equal care for everyone. That does not mean that the staff should be forced to do things against their beliefs. However, I emphatically state that nobody should be forced to do things against their beliefs.
A doctor or nurse or other personnel can refuse to do procedures if they feel their faith forbids them.
But a hospital, especially the only one in a county, should be prepared to treat everyone. They should have enough staff prepared to handle any procedure.

Hospitals, like schools and government, should be secular. Treatment should be secular.

Especially if they are receiving any federal funding.

If the story is accurate, I would think not only the hospitals, but the physicians should be on the hook as well.

I will say that as a nurse, I will never - ever- assume what I think the patient knows. Some on this thread act like being a mom x 2 means she should have known about medical implications of what was happening. I would never take for granted what I think someone knows. They may have knowledge of basics, but have absolutely no clue how something fits into the big picture.
 
Some random info is incorrect. I prefer correct information. It elevates us. ;)

prefer what you want the fact remains it was random and had nothing to do with the conversation you involved yourself in :shrug:

thats correct information and you are now elevated ;)
 
Especially if they are receiving any federal funding.

If the story is accurate, I would think not only the hospitals, but the physicians should be on the hook as well.

I will say that as a nurse, I will never - ever- assume what I think the patient knows. Some on this thread act like being a mom x 2 means she should have known about medical implications of what was happening. I would never take for granted what I think someone knows. They may have knowledge of basics, but have absolutely no clue how something fits into the big picture.

Thats not a condition of funding. The govt wont be able to to meet anywhere near the demand if religious hospitals shut down.
Why aren't you a patient advocate, nurse?
 
random incorrect information, now corrected. You are welcome.

yes thank you for admitting your post was random and meaningless to the conversation taking place
 
yes thank you for admitting your post was random and meaningless to the conversation taking place

I merely chose to use your choice of words, since facts are clearly distressing to you (even when correct and in context, you prefer to call them "random").

Here is where you do your best fonzie impression-now WHAT is fonzie?

 
I merely chose to use your choice of words, since facts are clearly distressing to you (even when correct and in context, you prefer to call them "random").

nice try but your FIRST post to me 219 was meaningless and random to my conversation :shrug:

stating that any ZEF that is pre-term would need a lot of help and likely have issues for life was meaningless to my post you quoted.

my post was about 20 weeks and viability and me thinking lizzie may have read something new. I have no problem with the accuracy or factuality of your post nor did i even doubt it one time but you are free to trey and sell straw man if you like.

I again ask did you have a point, if you did simply state it because i don't see it, this isnt rocket science lol
 
nice try but your FIRST post to me 219 was meaningless and random to my conversation :shrug:

stating that any ZEF that is pre-term would need a lot of help and likely have issues for life was meaningless to my post you quoted.

my post was about 20 weeks and viability and me thinking lizzie may have read something new. I have no problem with the accuracy or factuality of your post nor did i even doubt it one time but you are free to trey and sell straw man if you like.

I again ask did you have a point, if you did simply state it because i don't see it, this isnt rocket science lol

But it IS rocket science-in a way. Because instead of merely dismissing a fact out of hand as "random" etc, you are instinctively defending mediocrity.

To rise out of that is not easy-it violates human nature.

So its rocket science in that sense. ;)
 
1.)But it IS rocket science-in a way. Because instead of merely dismissing a fact out of hand as "random" etc, you are instinctively defending mediocrity.

To rise out of that is not easy-it violates human nature.

So its rocket science in that sense. ;)

nope never happened, didnt dismiss the fact as random it was in fact random, huge difference :shrug:
all i wanted to know is if you honestly had a further or actual point and that question seemed to much
 
Last edited:
We dont know what happened, and your appeal to emotion wont change that.

Yes, actually, we do know what happened. The woman was in the throes of a miscarriage, was running a fever, was bleeding, was in excrutiating pain, and was turned away without treatment three times. Your denial of facts which are irrefutable won't change that.
 
Yes, I would like to get Catholic charities out of the business of health care since they are incapable of leaving their religious beliefs out of their medical care practices.

Unfortunately, they have a lot of money and are taking over hospitals across the country.

I don't know in this particular case what happened, but usually there is a hospital there providing care; then the Catholic hospital comes in and acquires it.

I don't think religions should run hospitals anymore than I think govts should run churches.

Well, see, until the government takes over full control of healthcare and hospitals, you don't get to say who can run a hospital and you don't get to say what services they must provide. Even then, good luck. Just as an aside, Catholic hospitals here in Canada, with UHC, don't provide abortion services.

And just to clarify, since you continuously say this is not about abortion, please tell us what religious beliefs you're talking about that guided the treatment the hospital offered.
 
The Catholic Church is buying up secular hospitals all over the US.

The Catholic hospitals and clinics in the USA now get 1 out of every 6 patients.
There are a lot of areas in the USA such as the state of Washington where patients just don't have a choice within 100 's of miles.

The hospital the women who miscarried in the OP went to was the only one within 30 miles.

1. About 23% of the adult US population is Catholic so 1 out of every 6 patients being served by a Catholic hospital or clinic is underservice if you believe that all Catholic hospitals do is provide bible based health care.

2. Why do you think Catholic charities are "buying up secular hospitals"? Are they trying to take over the world, one denied abortion at a time? Or could it be that running a hospital is becoming a money loser and not worth the regulatory and legal hastle for those who would operate them?

3. How close do pregnant women and women in general believe it is their "right" to have a hospital or clinic that will bow to their every wish and demand? 30 miles is too far apparently - what, about a 30 to 45 minute drive? - how about 10 miles? 1 mile? Around the corner? In their backyard?

Don't like the medical care you're receiving in small or remote communities, open your own all service hospital with your own money or move to an area where all your demands can be met within walking distance.
 
Then why is Faux the source of the daily outrage? This is a rare left outrage, maybe.
There is major info missing from that article. This is like the Trayvon martin case or that lesbian waitress a few weeks ago. We are supposed to "feel" without facts, as in the classic liberal manner.
 
Apparently according to the legal complaint the woman was in pain with cramping , her water had broken, the doctors knew by the small amount of amniotic fluid left that the fetus would either be stillborn or would only live a short times ( hours ) but the 18 week fetus still had a heartbeat.

Why didn't they give meds that would induce labor ?

standard care would call for labor to be induced and the fetus delivered.

Is inducing labor when they knew the fetus would not live because there was not enough amniotic fluid considered an abortion and against the Catholic directive?
 
Apparently according to the legal complaint the woman was in pain with cramping , her water had broken, the doctors knew by the small amount of amniotic fluid left that the fetus would either be stillborn or would only live a short times ( hours ) but the 18 week fetus still had a heartbeat.

Why didn't they give meds that would induce labor ?

standard care would call for labor to be induced and the fetus delivered.

Is inducing labor when they knew the fetus would not live because there was not enough amniotic fluid considered an abortion and against the Catholic directive?

There may be a valid point when it comes to the provision of medical care - that's the American passtime, after all - spin the lawsuit lottery wheel - but that's for a court to decide. But when you couch your complaint about medical care with suggestions like "against the Catholic directive", then you cheapen and lose the argument.
 
Thats not a condition of funding. The govt wont be able to to meet anywhere near the demand if religious hospitals shut down.
Why aren't you a patient advocate, nurse?

I am. The kind that could die are very important to me. For the record, I am ok with them not providing the service. I AM NOT ok with them refusing to tell her the risks of her condition - which could be deadly. It is simply explaining the risks and options. If (yes if) she was in extreme danger because of the retained failing pregnancy she should have been notified. Hell, on a religious level - if they were gonna play the religion card....why not just send a Priest in to give her the message.:roll:(yes, that was sarcastic)

I am a patient advocate, I believe they should understand the severity of their condition. If they did not inform them, this is in my book the same as the OBGYNs that do not tell their patients of severe anomalies found on testing/ultrasound because they are afraid their patient will seek abortion.

Yes, a patient advocate. All of them.

Why not inform the woman of how bad it could get. They do not have to end her pregnancy, they just need to inform her of the real risks. IF they did not inform her of the risks involved in her problematic pregnancy I hope they are held accountable.
 
There may be a valid point when it comes to the provision of medical care - that's the American passtime, after all - spin the lawsuit lottery wheel - but that's for a court to decide. But when you couch your complaint about medical care with suggestions like "against the Catholic directive", then you cheapen and lose the argument.

I used the term Catholic directive because I am trying to understand if the Catholic Church really believes that inducing labor in a case like hers would be considered a direct abortion.
 
I used the term Catholic directive because I am trying to understand if the Catholic Church really believes that inducing labor in a case like hers would be considered a direct abortion.

The hospital, as I understand it, delivered the child who then passed away a short time later. How do you think that happened?

I realize that many here would prefer the tweeze and suction method of ridding the womb of the "parasite" as some call it, but some hospitals, some doctors, believe in making every attempt to save a life, no matter how fragile or unlikely to survive.
 
I am. The kind that could die are very important to me. For the record, I am ok with them not providing the service. I AM NOT ok with them refusing to tell her the risks of her condition - which could be deadly. It is simply explaining the risks and options. If (yes if) she was in extreme danger because of the retained failing pregnancy she should have been notified. Hell, on a religious level - if they were gonna play the religion card....why not just send a Priest in to give her the message.:roll:(yes, that was sarcastic)

I am a patient advocate, I believe they should understand the severity of their condition. If they did not inform them, this is in my book the same as the OBGYNs that do not tell their patients of severe anomalies found on testing/ultrasound because they are afraid their patient will seek abortion.

Yes, a patient advocate. All of them.

Why not inform the woman of how bad it could get. They do not have to end her pregnancy, they just need to inform her of the real risks. IF they did not inform her of the risks involved in her problematic pregnancy I hope they are held accountable.

Do you know for a fact this didn't happen? Do you know what private and confidential doctor/patient conversations took place at the hospital on each of the occasions on which she visited? As I understand it, her lawsuit, filed by the ACLU, doesn't name the specific doctors involved - why's that? Could it be they have bigger agenda issues to pursue and this woman happens to be a convenient pawn?

As for informing her of "the risks involved in her problematic pregnancy", are you claiming this hospital was her primary prenatal care provider? Where's her own doctor in all of this if her "problematic pregnancy" was so evident for all the world to see? Is he/she being sued for not fully informing her of the risks involved?

No, this has all the odor of a trumped up showcase to push the pro-abortion agenda of forcing all facilities, irrespective of their constitutional rights, to provide abortion on demand.
 
Thanks for the link. It appears that in the suit, the ACLU is alleging that the hospital didn't inform her that the best option would be to induce labor and abort. The problem I have with this, is that an 18 week fetus will not automatically die. It could have been delivered and sent to a neonatal intensive care unit, where the chances for survival aren't great, but are at least possible. I'm not sure why this would not have been an option for her. I still don't see why we are not seeing any information regarding her doctor in any of the stories which have been published about it, and I really don't think this is about anything more than the ACLU wanting to force a religious hospital to provide services which are against their own policies.

If their policy is negligent, particularly their policy of not providing complete info about the best treatment options, then why should they be allowed to continue them?
 
Back
Top Bottom