• 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

minnie616

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
25,748
Reaction score
29,813
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
nota bene just posted on another thread that hospitals will perform abortions if the woman's life is at risk, but far too often Catholic Hospitals do not perform direct abortions even when the woman's is at risk.

They wait until the woman is at deaths door and even then they do other procedures such as put the woman through a c-section even if they know the unborn was not far enough along to survive outside the womb.

If the woman has an ectopic pregnancy they take out the whole falloapian tube, rather than use medication that just kills the embryo but leaves the falloapian intact ( so the woman has a better chance of a future pregnancy.)

Legal abortions are sometimes needed to save a woman's life. The risk and maiming of unnecessary surgery for religious doctrine is not needed.

Let's keep hospital healthcare secular!

From the following article :

We come to our nation’s hospitals when we’re at our most vulnerable, in our times of greatest need. But many of our hospitals are owned by churches, which limit medical care based on religious doctrines. This keeps patients from the care they need, stops doctors from doing their jobs, and even threatens – and sometimes takes – patients’ lives.
Click to expand...

https://safeandsecular.org/hospital-ownership/
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
nota bene just posted on another thread that hospitals will perform abortions if the woman's life is at risk, but far too often Catholic Hospitals do not perform direct abortions even when the woman's is at risk.

They wait until the woman is at deaths door and even then they do other procedures such as put the woman through a c-section even if they know the unborn was not far enough along to survive outside the womb.

If the woman has an ectopic pregnancy they take out the whole falloapian tube, rather than use medication that just kills the embryo but leaves the falloapian intact ( so the woman has a better chance of a future pregnancy.)

Legal abortions are sometimes needed to save a woman's life. The risk and maiming of unnecessary surgery for religious doctrine is not needed.

Let's keep hospital healthcare secular!

From the following article :

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

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?
 
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...

Because if we didn't care, we'd be stuck with hollistic hospitals full of hippies telling you this herb or that herb, and draining the toxins from your chi, will cure you of cancer. It's an extreme example, but we gotta draw the line somewhere. And in my opinion the line should be drawn ever in favor of what's best for the patient. Not what the patient thinks what is best. They aren't doctors they don't know what's good for them. It's like letting your 6 year old decide when and how they're going to brush their teeth based on what their imaginary friend says. Mr. Frumples says I should brush my teeth with chocolate pudding, well who are we to disagree with you on your standard of care.
 
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...

Why not just go to a church for medical attention?
 
minnie616 said:
nota bene just posted on another thread that hospitals will perform abortions if the woman's life is at risk, but far too often Catholic Hospitals do not perform direct abortions even when the woman's is at risk.

They wait until the woman is at deaths door and even then they do other procedures such as put the woman through a c-section even if they know the unborn was not far enough along to survive outside the womb.

If the woman has an ectopic pregnancy they take out the whole falloapian tube, rather than use medication that just kills the embryo but leaves the falloapian intact ( so the woman has a better chance of a future pregnancy.)

Legal abortions are sometimes needed to save a woman's life. The risk and maiming of unnecessary surgery for religious doctrine is not needed.

Let's keep hospital healthcare secular!

From the following article :



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

Can you show me where "separation of church and health" is in the Constitution?
 
minnie616 said:
nota bene just posted on another thread that hospitals will perform abortions if the woman's life is at risk, but far too often Catholic Hospitals do not perform direct abortions even when the woman's is at risk.

They wait until the woman is at deaths door and even then they do other procedures such as put the woman through a c-section even if they know the unborn was not far enough along to survive outside the womb.

If the woman has an ectopic pregnancy they take out the whole falloapian tube, rather than use medication that just kills the embryo but leaves the falloapian intact ( so the woman has a better chance of a future pregnancy.)

Legal abortions are sometimes needed to save a woman's life. The risk and maiming of unnecessary surgery for religious doctrine is not needed.

Let's keep hospital healthcare secular!

From the following article :

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

I have always found it so perplexing that they would rather damage a woman's fertility for life than remove a embryo that will never develop anyway.

In what way does that support the building of families, to basically give a woman half a tubal against her will?
 
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...

The issue is that women are often not made aware of how they go about dealing with these issues. They say they will perform an abortive procedure for medical necessity or non-viable pregnancies, and sometimes that's true (not always -- women have died because of non-treatment of catastrophic pregnancies at Catholic hospitals), but they neglect to mention they'll do it by damaging your fertility, or putting your life at risk through unnecessary major surgery, rather than a comparatively safer standard abortion.
 
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...

I agree with the red but im not sure how you got to that from the OP, thats not what is being discussed. Whats being discussed is not forcing a person to religious treatment who doesnt want it. nobody is talking about banning religious treatment. You should be able to go to a religious hospital (what ever that means) if you want and AGREE to that treatment but if they are a hospital they should operate like every other hospital not differently and you dont know until its too late. Hospitals should be as uniform as possible with OPTIONS for those that want it not force.

just like religious schools, they MUST teach certain things to be an accredited school. Hospitals should operated the same way (in fact they already do within reason but it should be even more strict and medical science should always be #1 with religion as an option not as force.)
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
nota bene just posted on another thread that hospitals will perform abortions if the woman's life is at risk, but far too often Catholic Hospitals do not perform direct abortions even when the woman's is at risk.

They wait until the woman is at deaths door and even then they do other procedures such as put the woman through a c-section even if they know the unborn was not far enough along to survive outside the womb.

If the woman has an ectopic pregnancy they take out the whole falloapian tube, rather than use medication that just kills the embryo but leaves the falloapian intact ( so the woman has a better chance of a future pregnancy.)

Legal abortions are sometimes needed to save a woman's life. The risk and maiming of unnecessary surgery for religious doctrine is not needed.

Let's keep hospital healthcare secular!

From the following article :



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

Agreed 100%
medical science comes first and there should be even tighter regulations of conformity to call yourself a hospital than there already is.
 
I understand sometimes there are emergencies or distance/time is a critical factor, but everyone should by now be aware of Catholic doctrine/mentality concerning abortion.

To wit, satisfying their religious doctrine trumps most other considerations.
 
We wouldn't let musicians make medical decisions for hospitals. Why we let religions do it is beyond me.
 
Rogue Valley said:
I understand sometimes there are emergencies or distance/time is a critical factor, but everyone should by now be aware of Catholic doctrine/mentality concerning abortion.

To wit, satisfying their religious doctrine trumps most other considerations.
Click to expand...

But when dealing with a "hospital" it should not be that way. All regulations regarding medical science and conformity should be tighter.
Just like a religious school gets SOME leeway but has to confirm if they want to be an accredited schools the hospital system should be tighter especially when it can result/has resulted in death. A "hospital" is not a place where there should be any difference of main care base on feelings. Im all for the optional care but not forced treatment based on things other than medical science, thats not a "hospital" IMO
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
The issue is that women are often not made aware of how they go about dealing with these issues. They say they will perform an abortive procedure for medical necessity or non-viable pregnancies, and sometimes that's true (not always -- women have died because of non-treatment of catastrophic pregnancies at Catholic hospitals), but they neglect to mention they'll do it by damaging your fertility, or putting your life at risk through unnecessary major surgery, rather than a comparatively safer standard abortion.
Click to expand...

I would have to see statistics that so indicate before I'd want to put every religiously affiliated hospital out of business. Those doctors and hospitals are just as vulnerable to malpractice lawsuits as any other doctor or hospital.
 
AGENT J said:
I agree with the red but im not sure how you got to that from the OP, thats not what is being discussed. Whats being discussed is not forcing a person to religious treatment who doesnt want it. nobody is talking about banning religious treatment. You should be able to go to a religious hospital (what ever that means) if you want and AGREE to that treatment but if they are a hospital they should operate like every other hospital not differently and you dont know until its too late. Hospitals should be as uniform as possible with OPTIONS for those that want it not force.

just like religious schools, they MUST teach certain things to be an accredited school. Hospitals should operated the same way (in fact they already do within reason but it should be even more strict and medical science should always be #1 with religion as an option not as force.)
Click to expand...

I just don't agree. Where are statistics? Every medical procedure has accepted protocols. I don't believe religious institutions violate them. If they do? They'd be sued senseless.
 
MaggieD said:
I would have to see statistics that so indicate before I'd want to put every religiously affiliated hospital out of business. Those doctors and hospitals are just as vulnerable to malpractice lawsuits as any other doctor or hospital.
Click to expand...

Please let me make this clear I don't want to put Religious Hospitals out of business. I want to keep Church doctrine from making medical healthcare decisions for doctors and patients.

Religious hospitals hide behind their religious doctrine and are not as vulnerable to lawsuits because they cliaim they were following their church doctrine.

Tamesha Means lawsuit: Catholic hospital 'forced miscarrying woman to deliver 18-week fetus' | Daily Mail Online

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/cat...ged-iud-because-church-opposes-birth-control/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judyst...t-550-hospitals-because-of-catholic-doctrine/
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
1.) I just don't agree.
2.) Where are statistics?
3.) Every medical procedure has accepted protocols.
4.) I don't believe religious institutions violate them. If they do? They'd be sued senseless.
Click to expand...

1.) Dont agree with what? that hospitals should have an amount of regulated conformity so no matter which one you go to the patient receives the best care based on medical science and nothing else unless the patient CHOOSES.
2.) what stats? why are stats needed. Medical science should always be first
3.) procedure yes but when to do them obviously not and thats what im saying that decision should NEVER be based on anything but medical science or an option to deny it by the patient
4.) who said they did and suing could be too late
 
minnie616 said:
Please let me make this clear I don't want to put Religious Hospitals out of business. I want to keep Church doctrine from making medical healthcare decisions for doctors and patients.

Religious hospitals hide behind their religious doctrine and are not as vulnerable to lawsuits because they cliaim they were following their church doctrine.

Tamesha Means lawsuit: Catholic hospital 'forced miscarrying woman to deliver 18-week fetus' | Daily Mail Online

Catholic hospital turns away woman bleeding from dislodged IUD because church opposes birth control

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judyst...t-550-hospitals-because-of-catholic-doctrine/
Click to expand...

which is the total crap part.
 
MaggieD said:
I would have to see statistics that so indicate before I'd want to put every religiously affiliated hospital out of business. Those doctors and hospitals are just as vulnerable to malpractice lawsuits as any other doctor or hospital.
Click to expand...

I am perfectly fine with a private Catholic hospital deciding when they will and won't perform an abortive procedure. It's not like all secular hospitals perform elective abortions either, and usually not for any specific "moral" reason -- it's just not within the scope of all hospitals' services.

My issue is that they use substandard procedures that pose much more risk to the woman than a standard abortion would, they often don't tell people that, and their reasoning for it is not medically sound.

Here is the discussion of one of the aforementioned procedures -- removal of the fallopian tube as a treatment for ectopic pregnancy -- directly from the Catholic health organization:

Catholics United for the Faith | A Catholic Approach to Tubal Pregnancies | Teaching the Catholic Faith

So it's not like this is just a whisper on the wind. This is their policy, though they often don't do a good enough job of making sure women under their care actually know that.

This procedure results in reduced future fertility for the woman, in addition to other possible complications. Total removal of the fallopian tube isn't even accepted as a optimally safe procedure for an actual tubal ligation, due to the risk it has for ovarian complication, pelvic adhesion, and fluid retention problems. There's no reason it should be performed for any reason other than necessity due to disease of the tube itself, or because the ovary it's attached to was also removed.

We can remove these embryos without totally destroying the fallopian tube. But they don't, because apparently it's ok to kill an embryo indirectly, but not directly. It's basically fetus hot potato at the expense of the woman's reproductive health, despite that this comparatively dangerous procedure and a normal abortion both end the exact same way.

If Catholics want to run their own hospitals, I am fine with them deciding what their services are, but they need to actually serve the health of their patients, not their dogma. If they refuse to do medically safe abortions, then they should just stop offering any abortion services at all.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
I would have to see statistics that so indicate before I'd want to put every religiously affiliated hospital out of business. Those doctors and hospitals are just as vulnerable to malpractice lawsuits as any other doctor or hospital.
Click to expand...

Nobody is talking about putting the out of business????
And no the factually are not as vulnerable
 
AGENT J said:
1.) Dont agree with what? that hospitals should have an amount of regulated conformity so no matter which one you go to the patient receives the best care based on medical science and nothing else unless the patient CHOOSES.
2.) what stats? why are stats needed. Medical science should always be first
3.) procedure yes but when to do them obviously not and thats what im saying that decision should NEVER be based on anything but medical science or an option to deny it by the patient
4.) who said they did and suing could be too late
Click to expand...

If you are suggesting gvmtal regulation on standards of care and protocols, I have no problem with that.
 
MaggieD said:
If you are suggesting gvmtal regulation on standards of care and protocols, I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

We are, it actually already exists it should just be tighter and religion should never be an excuse out of it, medical science first, then the rest.
 
As a nurse I simply would like risks and benifuts laid out in a timely matter. They shiuld be told medical options. In Minnies example...before a woman gets wisked away into surgery...if she was not td that a medication was available instead....I would consider that malpractice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom