• 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!

Let's keep Healthcare Safe and secular

MaggieD said:
If people want to go to hospitals whose care reflects their religious beliefs, then they should be able to do so. Doctors and hospitals are susceptible to lawsuits for inadequate care just as are nonsecular hospitals. Why do we think it's appropriate to restrict patient access because we may disagree with their standard of care?
Click to expand...

it does not work that way Maggie

In order to perform any procedure, the hospital must first get consent from the patient. A patient can always refuse to consent to a procedure that conflicts with their religious beliefs. IOW, they can get care that reflects their religious beliefs at any hospital.
 
sangha said:
it does not work that way Maggie

In order to perform any procedure, the hospital must first get consent from the patient. A patient can always refuse to consent to a procedure that conflicts with their religious beliefs. IOW, they can get care that reflects their religious beliefs at any hospital.
Click to expand...

So what does that mean as regards this subject?
 
MaggieD said:
So what does that mean as regards this subject?
Click to expand...

It means people do not have to go to a religious hospital in order to receive care that reflects their religious beliefs, which contradicts your first post.
 
MaggieD said:
So what does that mean as regards this subject?
Click to expand...

Maggie, I have a question.

If you read the above article that Smoke and Mirrors posted on tubal pregnancy and Catholic faith....they clearly are pointing a woman towards removal of a fallopian tube vs a method that would end the pregnancy and hopefully avoid a surgical procedure.

My question is this. Do you think a medical doctor who is supposed to tell you the medical and surgical risks and options has a duty to tell the woman that there are other options to ending a tube pregnancy that do not involve surgery and have a better chance of preserving her fertility. He clearly can tell her those options are not available in the Catholic hospital. That is more than fine.
 
year2late said:
Maggie, I have a question.

If you read the above article that Smoke and Mirrors posted on tubal pregnancy and Catholic faith....they clearly are pointing a woman towards removal of a fallopian tube vs a method that would end the pregnancy and hopefully avoid a surgical procedure.

My question is this. Do you think a medical doctor who is supposed to tell you the medical and surgical risks and options has a duty to tell the woman that there are other options to ending a tube pregnancy that do not involve surgery and have a better chance of preserving her fertility. He clearly can tell her those options are not available in the Catholic hospital. That is more than fine.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. But, in my own healthcare, I was pointed directly at surgery which I refused. I was then offered what the doctor thought was a second, not as effective, treatment. The doctor did not start out by saying, "You have a couple of options here." He made his recommendation which I was free to accept or decline. I'll say, also, that neither of the options were likely to effect a cure but slow disease progression. I wasn't told that either.

In the cases the OP describes, however, it would seem to be malpractice not to give the patient a choice. In cases of emergencies, though, all bets are necessarily off, and a doctor will use their own supposedly best judgement.
 
MaggieD said:
I agree with you. But, in my own healthcare, I was pointed directly at surgery which I refused. I was then offered what the doctor thought was a second, not as effective, treatment. The doctor did not start out by saying, "You have a couple of options here." He made his recommendation which I was free to accept or decline. I'll say, also, that neither of the options were likely to effect a cure but slow disease progression. I wasn't told that either.

In the cases the OP describes, however, it would seem to be malpractice not to give the patient a choice. In cases of emergencies, though, all bets are necessarily off, and a doctor will use their own supposedly best judgement.
Click to expand...

I think the patient should be given a choice, even if the choice is not to remain in that facility. In the case of a pregnancy in the fallopian tubes, that doctor sure a hell should be able to refer the woman out IMMEDIATLY to a MD who can help her IMMEDIATLY.
 
MaggieD said:
I agree with you. But, in my own healthcare, I was pointed directly at surgery which I refused. I was then offered what the doctor thought was a second, not as effective, treatment. The doctor did not start out by saying, "You have a couple of options here." He made his recommendation which I was free to accept or decline. I'll say, also, that neither of the options were likely to effect a cure but slow disease progression. I wasn't told that either.

In the cases the OP describes, however, it would seem to be malpractice not to give the patient a choice. In cases of emergencies, though, all bets are necessarily off, and a doctor will use their own supposedly best judgement.
Click to expand...

And yet in Catholic hospitals the doctors are barred from telling the patient there are other options available.

Also with all the mergers of hospitals a patient may not know the hospital they are in is owned and run by Catholics.

From the article I linked to in my original post:
Yet Catholic hospitals do not simply refrain from offering certain kinds of care – they also often refuse to provide accurate guidance on where patients can receive the care they need. Under the Directives, doctors are barred from telling a patient with a nonviable pregnancy that there are other options available elsewhere. This denial of both care and information is particularly problematic in areas where other hospitals are not located nearby.
Click to expand...

https://safeandsecular.org/hospital-ownership/

And info about mergers
Over the past several years, a wave of proposed and completed mergers between secular and Roman Catholic hospitals has increased the number of Americans who will have to rely on a religious hospital for their health care. Several states have already seen mergers, including Illinois, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. More recently, mergers have been proposed in Washington and Ohio (the latter of which is in the process of an anti-trust lawsuit).

Since these hospitals are barred by church doctrine from performing many procedures, this means putting at risk individuals’ health, as well of the health of society generally.

The Consequence of Religious Control of Hospitals
Catholic health care providers are bound by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, a document issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that governs how their health care providers must handle a variety of issues. As this document reads: “The professional-patient relationship is never separated, then, from the Catholic identity of the health care institution.”
Click to expand...

https://safeandsecular.org/hospital-ownership/
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
And yet in Catholic hospitals the doctors are barred from telling the patient there are other options available.

Also with all the mergers of hospitals a patient may not know the hospital they are in is owned and run by Catholics.

From the article I linked to in my original post:


https://safeandsecular.org/hospital-ownership/

And info about mergers


https://safeandsecular.org/hospital-ownership/
Click to expand...

If they are not being told other options exist that may be safer for the woman or help preserve her fertility.....to me that crosses into malpractice territory. It is not malpractice NOT to offer a procedure. It certainly is to not explain risks benefits and options.

Yes, Catholic people go to Catholic hospitals. But they are open to all. They receive federal funding just most other US hospitals. No reason why they should explain risks, benefits, and usual and customary options.
 
countryboy said:
Even if it's their Hospital?
Click to expand...

I am only guessing here, I do not pretend to know the law regarding this issue.

I would think that since the Catholic Hospitals are receiving money from the federal government be it medicare, grants, etc they need to be accountable for a standard of practice. A standard of practice does not mean a hospital must offer a procedure...but when an MD explains risks and benefits and options, my guess is that if they avoided telling a patient about a potentially lifesaving option over a risker option ---- that would be a major issue for the doctor and potentially the hospital.

The problem is that Catholic Hospitals are open to all and a non adherent person would not even fathom that a doctor who is supposed to be their advocate would risk their health and well being.
 
No religious hospitals should exist period. Zealots should practice their faith in their churches and doctors should treat ill people with any and all means that modern medicine and the appropriate regulatory authorities have approved safe and effective. Those who can not live up to such simple standards should stay the hell out of healthcare.
 
prometeus said:
No religious hospitals should exist period. Zealots should practice their faith in their churches and doctors should treat ill people with any and all means that modern medicine and the appropriate regulatory authorities have approved safe and effective. Those who can not live up to such simple standards should stay the hell out of healthcare.
Click to expand...

If they exist within this country and accept money from the government, the hospital needs to abide by the rules, regulations, and standards of care expected at any other hospital that receives such funding.

This does not mean they have to provide every procedure...just given a truly informed medical consent.
 
year2late said:
If they exist within this country and accept money from the government, the hospital needs to abide by the rules, regulations, and standards of care expected at any other hospital that receives such funding.

This does not mean they have to provide every procedure...just given a truly informed medical consent.
Click to expand...
That would be OK but only if there were other choices where one could go and choose the treatment or method they wish. There are too many instances where there is only one choice and if that hospital is a religious one one can suffer the consequences of it.
 
MaggieD said:
If people want to go to hospitals whose care reflects their religious beliefs, then they should be able to do so. Doctors and hospitals are susceptible to lawsuits for inadequate care just as are nonsecular hospitals. Why do we think it's appropriate to restrict patient access because we may disagree with their standard of care?
Click to expand...

If some religious nut wants to leave their care in god's hands, they can do that at home. Medicine is a science, not a religion. If caring for women is something god opposes, He's an evil, ignorant god. Furthermore, allowing religious hospital administrators to set healthcare policy based upon their subjective faith is as dumb as it gets.
 
D_NATURED said:
If some religious nut wants to leave their care in god's hands, they can do that at home. Medicine is a science, not a religion. If caring for women is something god opposes, He's an evil, ignorant god. Furthermore, allowing religious hospital administrators to set healthcare policy based upon their subjective faith is as dumb as it gets.
Click to expand...

I've wondered how many people who lost a extreame amount of blood during an accident would want to be rushed to a nearby Jehovahs Wittness owned hospital that refused to give blood to patients due to their beliefs.
 
minnie616 said:
I've wondered how many people who lost a extreame amount of blood during an accident would want to be rushed to a nearby Jehovahs Wittness owned hospital that refused to give blood to patients due to their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Interesting!
 
minnie616 said:
I've wondered how many people who lost a extreame amount of blood during an accident would want to be rushed to a nearby Jehovahs Wittness owned hospital that refused to give blood to patients due to their beliefs.
Click to expand...

If one out of a thousand recovered, it would be a "miracle" we would never hear the end of. Fortunately, medical science has higher standards for what constitutes success than religion does. That's why, when some Imam or Priest gets prostate cancer, they seek medicine, not faith. It's better to thank god for trained doctors than to rely on His ability to heal.
 
countryboy said:
Can you show me where "separation of church and health" is in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

It's a legal interpretation of part of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom