• 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]

CanadaJohn said:
That's a bit of a stretch, but I haven't seen anything here yet that indicates where the woman's family doctor or doctor providing prenatal care is all of this or if she consulted with him/her and what advice that person gave.

Fact remains that Catholic hospitals have a constitutional right not to perform abortions and in my view, her own doctor should have been instructing her what to do should something go wrong and where to go. I also find it hard to believe that in a city of almost 40,000 there's only one hospital, a Catholic one, and no other medical facilities capable of serving this woman's needs.
Click to expand...

I imagine this has already been answered - but this was the only hospital in the county; there weren't any others.

Hospitals run by Catholic organizations get a heckuva lot of money from state and federal govts, including Medicare and Medicaid. They need to provide all care that is part of normal medical practices, including doing a D&C on a woman in a case like this. They should not be allowed to let their religion deny needed medical care to the patient.

And again - they ARE the only hospital in the county, and this is becoming all too common.

Faith Healers by Cienna Madrid - Seattle Features - The Stranger, Seattle's Only Newspaper
 
minnie616 said:
IMAGINE

Imagine if the Jehovah’s Witness church owned the only hospital in your area. Your loved one was in accident , has loss a lot of blood and their life is at risk. He/she needs a blood transfusion right away. But there is no Blood supply in the hospital because blood transfusions are against the religion of the Jehovah's Witness . Their in-house professional ethicist rejects the morality of blood transfusions, and the administrators have signed an agreement with the church to never, under any circumstances, carry out blood transfusions.

Therefore , without the life saving blood your loved one dies.

But that's OK ... Right? after all the hospital has a right to enforce their religious morals on all patients who enter the hospital not just those who agree with the ethics of the church that happens to own the hospital.

Yeah...You may feel that way. I used to feel that way too ...but not anymore.

I still agree practitioners should be allowed to have their values and be able to opt of certain procedures ( ie: Catholics and abortions , Jehovah’s Witness and blood transfusions ) but not hospitals because hospitals serve the general popuation and should offer life saving treatment to all their patients.
Click to expand...

Well said! well said!

This wasn't a private hospital with a select few patients. It is a hospital that serves the general community; it should not force its religious biases on patient care.

Don't forget, these hospitals also won't do tubal litigations and vasectomies. There are other procedures they won't do due to faith -
"Catholic health institutions may not promote or condone contraceptive practices." Emergency contraception can only be given to rape victims, and even then only "if, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already." Vasectomies and tubal ligations are also prohibited. Egg and sperm donors are deemed "contrary to the covenant of marriage," surrogate motherhood is prohibited because it denigrates "the dignity of the child and marriage," and doctors at Catholic hospitals can't help infertile couples conceive artificially—using their own eggs and sperm—because test-tube babies "separate procreation from the marital act in its unitive significance."

Then there's this: "Abortion... is never permitted."

Not even when the egg attaches outside the uterus and puts a mother's life in danger: "In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion."

Vasectomies, sperm donation, abortions, surrogacy—these are all perfectly legal, mundane procedures that married couples and single people of all faiths utilize (as recent statistics show, even 98 percent of Catholic women admit to using birth control). And yet, according to the Catholic institutions conquering our medical ones, these are options patients should not have.
Click to expand...

Faith Healers by Cienna Madrid - Seattle Features - The Stranger, Seattle's Only Newspaper
 
I wonder what their rationale would be if they knew that a miscarrying fetus was guaranteed to kill the mother unless removed? By their rules, the mother would also be dead.

How could they possibly explain this hypothetical?
 
RogueWarrior said:
I wonder what their rationale would be if they knew that a miscarrying fetus was guaranteed to kill the mother unless removed? By their rules, the mother would also be dead.

How could they possibly explain this hypothetical?
Click to expand...

I assume they think it's up to their god to decide who lives and who dies.....

but it's sad.

Friend's mom - had five kids - was in the Catholic hospital for another pregnancy which was medically difficult and life-threatening ... the mom asked for a tubal litigation so that she didn't risk getting pregnant again which would cause her to die, and leave her kids motherless. Hospital refused because "she might change her mind someday". Luckily, back in those days there were more choices, and she never went to that hospital again.
 
sangha said:
Why do you insist on sticking to a lie so obvious that even your buddy won't defend it?
Click to expand...

Tell the author of the OP he's lying and the article he linked is lying, if you don't believe the words I quoted from the OP.

Again - From the OP - Catholic hospital 'risked woman's life by forcing her to deliver 18-week fetus that had no chance of survival' because of no abortion policy.

By the way, you even "liked" the OP and the words it contained as repeated above - so to use the same attack you used on Jack Hayes, why did you like something you believed was a lie? You liked it so you must agree with it. So you agree with a lie and you continue to defend it.
 
RogueWarrior said:
I wonder what their rationale would be if they knew that a miscarrying fetus was guaranteed to kill the mother unless removed? By their rules, the mother would also be dead.

How could they possibly explain this hypothetical?
Click to expand...


Thats not a hypothetical, that happens often enough as an ectopic pregnancy. there are ways to treat it.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Tell the author of the OP he's lying and the article he linked is lying, if you don't believe the words I quoted from the OP.

Again - From the OP - Catholic hospital 'risked woman's life by forcing her to deliver 18-week fetus that had no chance of survival' because of no abortion policy.

By the way, you even "liked" the OP and the words it contained as repeated above - so to use the same attack you used on Jack Hayes, why did you like something you believed was a lie? You liked it so you must agree with it. So you agree with a lie and you continue to defend it.
Click to expand...

They lack reading comprehension-let alone any medical comprehension.
 
sangha said:
You said she is suing because they would not give her an abortion. Now you're changing you story to "because of their no abortion policy"

SHe is suing because she didn't receive the proper care for her condition, which did not require an abortion
Click to expand...

I'm responding to the OP and to people who comment on the OP - not to your nonsense parsing and distortion of my posts. I didn't change my story at all - nor did I ever say, as you claimed, that she was suing because she wanted an abortion - the suit is because she and her lawyers claim the proper or right care for her, in her condition, was to give her an abortion.

It really is pathetic, and this isn't the first or even the 20th time, that you need to distort and and twist another persons comments in order to invent an argument that doesn't exist. It's why I ignored your posts before and I shall do so again.
 
US Conservative said:
Thats not a hypothetical, that happens often enough as an ectopic pregnancy. there are ways to treat it.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may. Let's say they can't treat it and it will kill the mother. What will they do? No abortion means the mother dies.

How can they justify that?
 
paddymcdougall said:
I imagine this has already been answered - but this was the only hospital in the county; there weren't any others.

Hospitals run by Catholic organizations get a heckuva lot of money from state and federal govts, including Medicare and Medicaid. They need to provide all care that is part of normal medical practices, including doing a D&C on a woman in a case like this. They should not be allowed to let their religion deny needed medical care to the patient.

And again - they ARE the only hospital in the county, and this is becoming all too common.

Faith Healers by Cienna Madrid - Seattle Features - The Stranger, Seattle's Only Newspaper
Click to expand...

Well, I'll accept this but put this to you. Why should a Catholic hospital, even if it's the only one in the county, be denied their constitutional rights simply because the county provides no other options? When did it become the responsibility of the Catholic Church to serve the medical needs of all citizens in a particular area? Seems to me, your issue is with the county and/or the State of Michigan, for not ensuring reasonable access to hospital or clinical facilities that serve the needs of those who want services contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Catholic Church, prior to building or opening the hospital in this area, made it clear to county officials that they would not be providing abortion services. Since it is the State that is responsible for ensuring the provision of a woman's right to an abortion, not the Catholic Church, the woman may have a case against the State, but not the Church.
 
RogueWarrior said:
I wonder what their rationale would be if they knew that a miscarrying fetus was guaranteed to kill the mother unless removed? By their rules, the mother would also be dead.

How could they possibly explain this hypothetical?
Click to expand...

I don't profess to be a doctor nor do I profess to be a spokesperson for the Catholic Church, but my guess would be that the Catholic Hospital would attempt to "deliver" the fetus while protecting the life of the mother. It may be semantics to some, but it would be the hospital attempting to save both lives with the understanding that the life of the child is a lesser priority, but not of lesser value, to the life of the mother.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Be that as it may. Let's say they can't treat it and it will kill the mother. What will they do? No abortion means the mother dies.

How can they justify that?
Click to expand...

They dont because it does not happen. Find me a documented case. Note that the original posts article is not a documented case.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Well, I'll accept this but put this to you. Why should a Catholic hospital, even if it's the only one in the county, be denied their constitutional rights simply because the county provides no other options? When did it become the responsibility of the Catholic Church to serve the medical needs of all citizens in a particular area? Seems to me, your issue is with the county and/or the State of Michigan, for not ensuring reasonable access to hospital or clinical facilities that serve the needs of those who want services contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Catholic Church, prior to building or opening the hospital in this area, made it clear to county officials that they would not be providing abortion services. Since it is the State that is responsible for ensuring the provision of a woman's right to an abortion, not the Catholic Church, the woman may have a case against the State, but not the Church.
Click to expand...

Well, I would agree that when they first applied to take over the hospital, the licensing should have been based on them serving everyone according to best practice medical techniques and that it should have been clear they could not apply their religious bias to the care they provide. If they were unwilling to do that, they should not have been allowed to take over the hospital.

I also would agree that IF THEY TOOK NO STATE AND FEDERAL MONEY - including medicare/medicaid -and it was all private - then they could say they can discriminate on the care they provide.

But given that they take our tax dollars, they need to follow best practice medical care. In this case, sending the woman home in her condition and refusing to do an abortion was NOT best practice medical care. We're not talking about an abortion for non-medical reasons; we're talking about saving a woman's life.

I do agree that when they got the license it should have been made clear to them the standard of care they were expected to provide; I hold the people who licensed them responsible for that. But given that they are the only hospital in the county, they need to provide proper care. If they don't want to, they should only take over hospitals in areas where there are secular alternatives. That's their choice - they chose an area with no other hospitals. They didn't have to.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Well, I would agree that when they first applied to take over the hospital, the licensing should have been based on them serving everyone according to best practice medical techniques and that it should have been clear they could not apply their religious bias to the care they provide. If they were unwilling to do that, they should not have been allowed to take over the hospital.

I also would agree that IF THEY TOOK NO STATE AND FEDERAL MONEY - including medicare/medicaid -and it was all private - then they could say they can discriminate on the care they provide.

But given that they take our tax dollars, they need to follow best practice medical care. In this case, sending the woman home in her condition and refusing to do an abortion was NOT best practice medical care. We're not talking about an abortion for non-medical reasons; we're talking about saving a woman's life.

I do agree that when they got the license it should have been made clear to them the standard of care they were expected to provide; I hold the people who licensed them responsible for that. But given that they are the only hospital in the county, they need to provide proper care. If they don't want to, they should only take over hospitals in areas where there are secular alternatives. That's their choice - they chose an area with no other hospitals. They didn't have to.
Click to expand...

First Amendment to the US Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.":peace
 
mak2 said:
There is more to this story. They would have probably transfered her by ambulance or at least told her to go to the nearest hospital. Fishy story.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. Fishy story. Just because someone who is after money alleges something for the purpose of a lawsuit, it doesn't mean the allegation is true. People allege all kinds of things in lawsuits that never go anywhere. There is going to be a burden of proof, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Many things will come into play to include doctor and nurse testimony, witness testimony, the medical record to name just a few. There is equipment these days that will show if a woman is in labor or not. The readout from that, which always finds its way into the chart, no doubt will be an important piece of evidence in this case.
 
sangha said:
Why would she go to another hospital?

She went to the hospital. They didn't tell her that her life was in danger. They didn't tell her that the safest thing to do was to abort the fetus. They examined her. They gave her medicine.

What reason would she have to go somewhere else?
Click to expand...

If that particular hospital didn't provide maternity services, that would be one good reason. Not all hospitals provide every service.
 
mak2 said:
Her water broke, she should know...OB aint my thing but I would know to get a second opinion.
Click to expand...

She CLAIMS her water broke. If there was no evidence of this at the hospital sending her home was appropriate. And there is that little thing called the mucus plug. If that was intact, then her water had not broken.

http://www.webmd.com/baby/labor-signs
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
Tell the author of the OP he's lying and the article he linked is lying, if you don't believe the words I quoted from the OP.

Again - From the OP - Catholic hospital 'risked woman's life by forcing her to deliver 18-week fetus that had no chance of survival' because of no abortion policy.

By the way, you even "liked" the OP and the words it contained as repeated above - so to use the same attack you used on Jack Hayes, why did you like something you believed was a lie? You liked it so you must agree with it. So you agree with a lie and you continue to defend it.
Click to expand...

The OP did not claim the woman was suing because the hospital would not give her an abortion, as you dishonestly claimed
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm responding to the OP and to people who comment on the OP - not to your nonsense parsing and distortion of my posts. I didn't change my story at all - nor did I ever say, as you claimed, that she was suing because she wanted an abortion - the suit is because she and her lawyers claim the proper or right care for her, in her condition, was to give her an abortion.
Click to expand...

You did not say that she is suing because she wanted an abortion. You claimed that she as suing because the hospital would not give her an abortion

That was a lie
 
US Conservative said:
In the US, where AMERICAN MEDICINE, and AMERICAN LAWS apply.
Click to expand...

The rules in place at Mercy are the exact same as the Irish hospital. They are based on catholic religious principles. No abortions, period. A fetus is deemed to be alive if it has a heart beat.
The fact that the example comes from Ireland is irrelevant.
 
RogueWarrior said:
The rules in place at Mercy are the exact same as the Irish hospital. They are based on catholic religious principles. No abortions, period. A fetus is deemed to be alive if it has a heart beat.
The fact that the example comes from Ireland is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Spare me the assumptions. You dont know what is going on at that hosptal. There should be thousands of your little scenario happening here in the US, surely ONE CASE can be demonstrated.

Or can you not back that up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom