Full title due to stupid title restriction: Hospital denies pregnant woman life-saving procedure due to religion.

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/catholic-hospital-under-fire-for-denying-194225836.html

Apparently this Catholic hospital denied the procedure because they deemed it to be "intrinsically evil." Ironically they performed this procedure in the past but now they're saying no to the whole thing.

Thank you religion! It's so nice that you're endangering pregnancies due to your beliefs!

It's the Bible Belt. Sorry, but I'm not overly surprised.

It's not bad enough our shitty healthcare is killing people though, let's take it a step further and throw "God's will and some Jesus" in the mix.

Pathetic.

I wonder what Mr. Steinberg thinks of circumcision

It sounds like a perfect plot point for a Chick Tract comic.

Go to a different hospital. Problem solved

At 10/16/15 10:57 PM, DJ-Ri wrote: Go to a different hospital. Problem solved

She did. The problem is that she said: “I am very close to giving birth and instead of being excited, I’m terrified because my hospital turned me away, and I’ve had to go find a new doctor and hospital with little time to get them up speed on my complicated medical history and health risks.”

At 10/16/15 10:59 PM, TheGamechanger wrote:

At 10/16/15 10:57 PM, DJ-Ri wrote: Go to a different hospital. Problem solved

She did. The problem is that she said: “I am very close to giving birth and instead of being excited, I’m terrified because my hospital turned me away, and I’ve had to go find a new doctor and hospital with little time to get them up speed on my complicated medical history and health risks.”

That's unfortunate, but the fact is that it's a privately-owned Catholic hospital. If they deem a certain type of medical procedure to be in conflict with their religious beliefs, they should have the right to refuse to perform that procedure. If you don't agree with their religious views, you shouldn't be going to a Catholic hospital in the first place. There are plenty of secular hospitals to choose from.

At 10/16/15 10:55 PM, WahyaRanger2 wrote: It's the Bible Belt. Sorry, but I'm not overly surprised.

It's not bad enough our shitty healthcare is killing people though, let's take it a step further and throw "God's will and some Jesus" in the mix.

Ireland has the same problem.

I'm going to get a lot of heat for this, and people thinking I'm trying to start a flame war; but I think that there should be a forceful (and even violent if necessary) movement to remove the influence of organized religion over government, health, and education services. If they won't renounce the idea that their work is more important than their religion than they should be fired, plain and simple. If they try to force their way back into power then violence is justified.

At 10/17/15 01:30 AM, MemeFiend wrote:

Don't tip your fedora so hard laddy, you're scaring the children.
There's 5,686 hospitals in the US, that's over 100 hospitals in each state, the odds are pretty bad, but she might find another hospital in time.
Also, Yahoo news? really?

They should not be allowed to call themselves a hospital if they run on religious ideas anyway, so it's less a matter of find another hospital and more find an actual hospital in the first place.

At 10/16/15 10:55 PM, WahyaRanger2 wrote: It's the Bible Belt. Sorry, but I'm not overly surprised.

It's not bad enough our shitty healthcare is killing people though, let's take it a step further and throw "God's will and some Jesus" in the mix.

Pathetic.

Thank you for acknowledging the kinds of problems the overly-religious crap can cause for those of us in the Bible Belt. People like @DJ-Ri seem all too eager to simply play apologist for those types, as evidenced, for example, in this reply ...

At 10/16/15 10:57 PM, DJ-Ri wrote: Go to a different hospital. Problem solved

No. Problem not "solved". I don't think you understand what it's like to live in an area with undue oppressive religious control over everything. Stop excusing lousy behavior just because that behavior happens to come from a Christian organization. Freedom of religion shouldn't mean freedom to force your religious beliefs, whatever they may be, onto others, at their detriment, and beliefs which they absolutely *DO NOT SHARE!*

And yet you've claimed time and again this sort of thing doesn't happen and yet, when an example is presented, "Oh just go somewhere else. There's plenty of places." ... No that is not an acceptable excuse! Nor are there necessarily many options in some cases, in some areas.

And I'm tired of nosy religious types dictating what businesses can or cannot exist in various areas. That is absolutely a violation of separation of church and state when the church essentially dictates that some business the church disapproves of is not allowed due to "community standards" i.e. because it's not church-approved. Funny how we can't deny a new church going into some area on the exact same basis (that the church would change the existing community standards in the area). Well guess what? Not everyone in the community goes to the churches and the rest of us shouldn't have church-will imposed on us. That's fascist. If the community truly doesn't like it they won't buy from it and the business will go out of business, simple as that, but yeah it's crap like that which puts ridiculous laws on the books that people years later go like "what??" .. because essentially some church basically wrote the law despite a quote-unquote "separation of church and state". DJ-Ri, do you not see the huge problem here?

This problem becomes exponentially worse the more control any of these churches have over any particular area.

Worship and go to church all you want, but don't you dare dictate what I should do, what my neighbor should do, or what anyone else should do, provided we're not breaking any laws. Does it violate your beliefs? Then don't personally do those things. Even advocate against them if you like. But don't force anyone's hand.

Yes, many things can be justified legally in the name of "freedom", such as refusing treatment for religious reasons.
However, it is obviously against medical ethics. Doctors have the duty to save lives since they have made an oath to do so. The patient's interest here must be the top priority.

Just because there may not be any legal liability does not mean it is proper.

At 10/17/15 05:02 AM, Sobolev wrote: Yes, many things can be justified legally in the name of "freedom", such as refusing treatment for religious reasons.
However, it is obviously against medical ethics. Doctors have the duty to save lives since they have made an oath to do so. The patient's interest here must be the top priority.

Just because there may not be any legal liability does not mean it is proper.

On the other hand, there's a good chance there is legal liability, as it's going to court. That will be up to lawyers and judges to decide.

If only religious apologists could understand and acknowledge why enforcing religious views is bad ... if only ...

At 10/17/15 04:09 AM, NeonSpider wrote: Thank you for acknowledging the kinds of problems the overly-religious crap can cause for those of us in the Bible Belt. People like @DJ-Ri seem all too eager to simply play apologist for those types, as evidenced, for example, in this reply ...

It's a privately owned hospital. They're not oppressing anyone and the government has no business forcing them to perform procedures they don't want to perform, regardless of whether or not that has anything to do with their religion. Religion is irrelevant.

At 10/17/15 05:56 AM, DJ-Ri wrote: It's a privately owned hospital. They're not oppressing anyone and the government has no business forcing them to perform procedures they don't want to perform, regardless of whether or not that has anything to do with their religion. Religion is irrelevant.

Err, except they are oppressing people -- people who placed their trust into a hospital -- a hospital which is then selectively choosing things, not based on best medical practice nor even on the beliefs of the individual patients, but rather forcing their own religious beliefs into the equation. Tell me. Do these hospitals have huge signs on the front door specifying exactly which procedures they don't allow? No? Then it is misleading at best to claim hospital status and refuse treatments which generally would be expected as standard practice. So, require those huge signs with a large WARNING at the top right as you enter the hospital building as well as adequate equivalent warnings for people with disabilities, *or* don't claim hospital status, *or* actually perform the expected duties of a hospital.

I agree the government shouldn't force them to perform procedures they don't wish to perform, but I also note that if they don't perform the standard procedures to be expected of a hospital, and they don't make everyone aware of this in *BIG BOLD TYPE* ahead of time and during and before each visit, that it constitutes at the very least false advertising, is deceptive to potential patients, and they should have their hospital status revoked. Medical practice is licensed for a reason. You don't get to pick and choose. You adhere to the accepted medical practice or you go into some other field.

Religion is very relevant when it is used to oppress others.

What a nice way to spread your prejudice and Atheist fundamentalism, on a forum.

Anyone notice how on of her kids looks more like a man than her father?

Living is intrinsically evil. No living being is good.

At 10/17/15 11:35 AM, Hoodie wrote:

At 10/17/15 07:42 AM, Radaketor wrote: Anyone notice how on of her kids looks more like a man than her father?

I feel like I'm biased because of his beard, but no.

Without the beard he would look like a thumb.

Anyway, here's the modern Hippocratic Oath that doctors swear by in medical school:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

I believe that refusing service in the name of religion is "playing God." That would make this case a clear breach of the Hippocratic Oath which, while itself not a crime that can be punished, may lead to inquiries of medical malpractice. I'd recommend to this establishment that, in order to free themselves of such a liability, they stop referring to themselves as a hospital. The least they should do is offer patients a disclaimer or contract clearly stating that their staff are not doctors, and do not abide by the Oath.

At 10/17/15 11:24 AM, NekoMika wrote:

I am perfectly ok with this minus the violent part if it can be helped. Religion has no place in government, the workplace, or education (unless a religious school or some shit.)

I only support violence if it's a counter to a violent attempt for religion to reenter the government, workplace, or education.

At 10/16/15 11:02 PM, DJ-Ri wrote:

That's unfortunate, but the fact is that it's a privately-owned Catholic hospital. If they deem a certain type of medical procedure to be in conflict with their religious beliefs, they should have the right to refuse to perform that procedure. If you don't agree with their religious views, you shouldn't be going to a Catholic hospital in the first place. There are plenty of secular hospitals to choose from.

In the Bible Belt that isn't necessarily the case. There's also plenty of 'secular' hospitals there where doctors who are religious refuse to perform these kinds of procedures.

At 10/17/15 09:51 PM, Suprememessage wrote:

At 10/16/15 11:02 PM, DJ-Ri wrote:

In the Bible Belt that isn't necessarily the case. There's also plenty of 'secular' hospitals there where doctors who are religious refuse to perform these kinds of procedures.

I'm pretty sure that's illegal. If a doctor at a public hospital refuses to perform a life saving procedure, that doctor should and likely will face consequences for it. If they're a private hospital with a clear policy against performing that procedure, they are not only not required to perform that procedure, but could likely face termination for performing it.

At 10/17/15 11:34 AM, MrPercie wrote: No, just letting them die.

How far your medical world has come, america.

Again, as I stated in my first post in this thread: If you aren't happy with the service you receive from a privately-owned hospital, either choose a different one or go to a public hospital. Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to go to Catholic hospitals.

At 10/17/15 06:42 AM, NeonSpider wrote: Err, except they are oppressing people -- people who placed their trust into a hospital -- a hospital which is then selectively choosing things, not based on best medical practice nor even on the beliefs of the individual patients, but rather forcing their own religious beliefs into the equation.

I don't agree with the notion that they're oppressing anyone. If you expect this hospital to perform a procedure that they have a policy against performing - regardless of whether it is for religious reasons or not - then you are setting yourself up for a big disappointment. That's not the hospital's fault.

Tell me. Do these hospitals have huge signs on the front door specifying exactly which procedures they don't allow? No? Then it is misleading at best to claim hospital status and refuse treatments which generally would be expected as standard practice. So, require those huge signs with a large WARNING at the top right as you enter the hospital building as well as adequate equivalent warnings for people with disabilities, *or* don't claim hospital status, *or* actually perform the expected duties of a hospital.

The details of this particular incident are not very clear in the story link OP posted, but I certainly would expect the hospital to inform the patient of their policies in advance. I agree that there should be a requirement to disclose such information to patients before they begin receiving services at a hospital.

Religion is very relevant when it is used to oppress others.

I don't view a privately-owned business refusing to take part in a certain action as a form of oppression, and I don't think their reason for that refusal is relevant. They could just as easily refuse to perform this procedure for any other reason and I would still firmly support their right to do so, but I do agree that they should be required to disclose this information to patients in advance so that people know what sort of services they can expect to receive.

Today on Stupid Fucking Arguments on NGBBS

At 10/17/15 10:30 PM, DJ-Ri wrote:

At 10/17/15 09:51 PM, Suprememessage wrote:

At 10/16/15 11:02 PM, DJ-Ri wrote:

In the Bible Belt that isn't necessarily the case. There's also plenty of 'secular' hospitals there where doctors who are religious refuse to perform these kinds of procedures.

I'm pretty sure that's illegal. If a doctor at a public hospital refuses to perform a life saving procedure, that doctor should and likely will face consequences for it. If they're a private hospital with a clear policy against performing that procedure, they are not only not required to perform that procedure, but could likely face termination for performing it.

They generally do face consequences but by that time it's too late.

All hospitals should be secular by law. The simple matter is religion does not have any authority in the medical field, I wouldn't support the army owning public schools either for the same reason; it's not their area of authority.

At 10/18/15 01:55 AM, mysticvortex13 wrote:

At 10/16/15 10:56 PM, PannedCakes wrote: I wonder what Mr. Steinberg thinks of circumcision

steinberg is italicized like it means something. you sure you're not talking about j.s. steinman?

Steinberg is a Jewish name. That's your hint.

This story takes place in Michigan, doesn't it? I don't believe that's in the Bible Belt...

At 10/17/15 07:42 AM, Radaketor wrote: Anyone notice how on of her kids looks more like a man than her father?

Doesn't look good as her father.

At 10/18/15 06:22 AM, CiviLies wrote: This story takes place in Michigan, doesn't it? I don't believe that's in the Bible Belt...

Yes, Michigan isn't in the Bible Belt, but similar kind of crap is pretty common in the Bible Belt. It's for identical reasons though -- people forcing their own religious beliefs into areas where they really don't belong, and predictably causing harm to people as a direct result, yet not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions and trying to claim "but muh religion".

At 10/17/15 11:22 PM, Suprememessage wrote:

At 10/17/15 10:30 PM, DJ-Ri wrote: I'm pretty sure that's illegal. If a doctor at a public hospital refuses to perform a life saving procedure, that doctor should and likely will face consequences for it. If they're a private hospital with a clear policy against performing that procedure, they are not only not required to perform that procedure, but could likely face termination for performing it.

They generally do face consequences but by that time it's too late.

All hospitals should be secular by law. The simple matter is religion does not have any authority in the medical field, I wouldn't support the army owning public schools either for the same reason; it's not their area of authority.

Not only that but sometimes they don't even face any consequences at all because all the law enforcement in the area is Christian as are many of the judges, who tend to selectively turn a blind eye to wrongs that other Christian groups cause. It's corruption but you really don't hear about it unless something gets so big it goes to the Supreme Court or things of that nature.

The problem with Californians is they don't tend to understand what it's like outside of California. Nothing against DJ-Ri in particular in this area but yeah I'm finding this to be a pretty common issue. Yeah, I'm saying Californians are, in general, out of touch with the rest of the country. Now, I'm not pretending I know exactly what it's like in California, because I don't, but I certainly know what it's like around here, and I can tell you it's nothing at all like DJ-Ri's assumptions of how things work in America.

At 10/17/15 10:30 PM, DJ-Ri wrote: Again, as I stated in my first post in this thread: If you aren't happy with the service you receive from a privately-owned hospital, either choose a different one or go to a public hospital. Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to go to Catholic hospitals.

If the only hospitals in your area are religious hospitals, then ...

Now I'm not saying that's necessarily the case in this particular instance, but don't pretend like everyone has all these great options just because you happen to live in a place with such options.

I don't agree with the notion that they're oppressing anyone. If you expect this hospital to perform a procedure that they have a policy against performing - regardless of whether it is for religious reasons or not - then you are setting yourself up for a big disappointment. That's not the hospital's fault.

I expect hospitals to perform standard procedures that hospitals are, in general, expected to perform. If they have not bothered to make people aware of exactly which standard procedures they do not perform *PRIOR TO EVER USING THEIR SERVICES* then it very much is the hospital's fault!

The details of this particular incident are not very clear in the story link OP posted, but I certainly would expect the hospital to inform the patient of their policies in advance. I agree that there should be a requirement to disclose such information to patients before they begin receiving services at a hospital.

LOL! So the problem is then that you literally believe religiously run hospitals (or religiously run anything) adequately inform everyone of all the services they choose not to offer due to their beliefs? Wow! Just wow. You really haven't been in any religiously-dominated areas have you? They tend to just steamroll everyone and if that causes problems, they tend to blame everyone except themselves despite being the exact cause of those problems.

The exact problem is that they don't tend to inform people of important service omissions and people will find out too late, right when it's emergency time.

but I do agree that they should be required to disclose this information to patients in advance so that people know what sort of services they can expect to receive.

Well, the exact problem is that they're not doing this. If they had done that then, quite simply, that family and others would have gone elsewhere and not had any issues. I'm sorry you put so much faith in the honesty of religious organizations to be up-front about their actions, but that faith is ill-founded.

It reminds me of this sketch on "Wonder Showzen" where a woman is executed right after giving birth. They kept the baby, but not the mother! Couldn't they at least do that this time? They couldn't be pro choice.